'^^ K^' 


















•^ %.^^ .^^' 









^^ 









\> %^ ^ "> t 



^ .0- 



S^'^ 



'^'ci^. 



\. 






'-^ 






^^ 



s^^'/r 






«» if. 









% V^^ 



\ I B 



>■ ^■ 






oo. 






f?. 5i 



.0' . ^ '. 'c- 



'^. ^ * X -^ 

\ ^ t « n 



..%^ -%■ 






rf- 'T- 



^^" ^'':, 






,>r 










x^^^. 



A 



. 1 '^ 



^^. * •> N ^ A^^ 




:\^^ 



V ^ 



^^.Z 






^^. S 



/: 









',V 






A v^ 






^ ^ V^^^ 



« X 



9-. -C 



■^oo^ 



^^. 









> 






.V * 



0^^ 



..-iy' 









^-i V . 










"°o 




SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA 
FROM 1776 TO 1861 



SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA 
FROM 1776 TO 1861 



BY 

CHARLES HENRY AMBLER, PH.D. 



CHICAGO 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 

1910 






Copyright 1910 By 
The University of Chicago 



Published June 1910 



Composed and Printed By 

The UniverBity of Chicago Press 

Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. 



^t-"-^" 






PREFACE 

My interest in things pertaining to both West Vir- 
ginia and Virginia is due largely to the fact that I was 
reared and educated in the former state and born of 
parents who, like all true Virginians, never forgot the 
latter, the state of their nativity. Quite early in my 
college career I began to inquire about the causes of the 
dismemberment of the ''Old Dominion." I then planned 
to write a monograph upon the "Formation of West 
Virginia." But a casual search into the preliminaries 
for this study soon convinced me that they were prob- 
ably more important than the subject upon which I 
proposed to write. Accordingly I gave up my original 
plan for a more difficult undertaking, the study of 
sectionalism in Virginia during the ante-bellum period. 
As it would require volumes to present every detail of 
this subject, I have restricted this monograph mainly 
to the political differences. 

Neither pains nor time have been spared to obtain 
accurate and exhaustive information. In addition to 
the suggestions and information kindly given me by 
scores of old men, who remember the last years of 
the ante-bellum period, I have tried to obtain, by travel 
and otherwise, a thorough knowledge of the geog- 
raphy of both Virginia and West Virginia. Besides, 
I have made research in person in the Department of 
Archives and History, at Charleston, W. Va., in the 
Virginia State Library, at Richmond, in the Library of 



VI PREFACE 

the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, at Madison, 
and in the Congressional Library. But my chief 
sources of information have been the legislative docu- 
ments of Virginia and West Virginia and the public 
prints. I realize fully the treachery of such sources 
as the last named, but, all things considered, they are 
the best that are available for a study of this nature. 
The first eight chapters of this study were offered 
and accepted for my Doctor's dissertation at the Uni- 
versity of Wisconsin in 1908. For suggestions, criti- 
cism, and the care with which he has read my 
manuscript I am especially indebted to Dr. Ulrich B. 
Phillips, of New Orleans, La. My acknowledgments 
and thanks are also due to Dr. F. J. Turner, of Madi- 
son, Wis. ; to Dr. W. E. Dodd, of Chicago, 111. ; to 
Dr. W. L. Fleming, of Baton Rouge, La., and to Mr. 
Virgil A. Lewis, of Charleston, W. Va. To the many 
others who have assisted me in various ways, I can 
here extend only a sweeping expression of thanks. 

Charles Henry Ambler 

Ashland, Va. 
September 6, 1909 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Introduction i 

II. Revolution, Confederation, and the Con- 
stitution, 1776-90 24 

III. Federalists and Republicans, 1790-1816. . 61 

IV. The Era of Good Feeling and the Rise of 

THE National Republican Party, 1817-28 . 100 

V. The Constitutional Convention of 1829-30 137 

VI. Internal Improvements, Negro Slavery, 

AND Nullification, 1829-33 175 

VII. Parties in the Whig Period, 1834-50 . . 219 

VIII. The Reform Convention of 1850-51 . . . 251 

IX. Sectionalism in Education and the Church, 

1830-61 273 

X. History of Political Parties, i 851 -61 . . 300 

Bibliography 339 

Index 351 



vn 



LIST OF MAPS 

1 . Vote on the Ratification of the Federal Con- 
stitution 58 

2. Vote in the House of Delegates on the Reso- 
lutions OF 1798 71 

3. Vote of Virginia's Representatives on the 
Tariff Bill of 1828 122 

4. Presidential Election of 1824 131 

5. Presidential Election of 1828 135 

6. Vote on the Constitutional Convention Bill 

OF 1828 144 

7. Vote by Counties on the Ratification of the 
Constitution of 1830 172 

8. Vote of the House of Delegates of 1831-32 
ON the Expediency of Legislating for the 
Abolition of Negro Slavery 199 

9. Vote of Virginia's Representatives on the 
Tariff of 1832 204 

10. Vote in the House of Delegates of 1832-33 
ON Resolutions Mildly Approving the Course 

OF South Carolina on Nullification . . . 217 

11. Whig and Democratic Strength as Shown by 
the Membership of the House of Delegates 

OF 1834-35 222 

12. Presidential Election of i860 330 



IX 



CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 

PART I. NATURAL FEATURES 

The surface of Virginia is divided into two un- 
equally inclined planes and a centrally located valley. 
The eastern plane is subdivided into the Piedmont and 
the Tidewater; the western into the Alleghany High- 
lands, the Cumberland Plateau, and the Ohio Valley 
section. The area between them is commonly spoken 
of as the "Valley." It is subdivided into numerous 
smaller sections of which the Chinch, Holston, New, 
and Shenandoah valleys are the most important. 

The Tidewater extends from the Atlantic Coast to 
the "fall line" on the rivers, i. e., to the line connecting 
the present cities of Fredericksburg, Richmond, Peters- 
burg, and Weldon. The soil contains gravel, sand, 
shale, and clay. The Chesapeake and its broad arms 
are doorways to the sea, the Atlantic rivers being 
navigable for large vessels to Richmond, Fredericks- 
burg, and Alexandria. 

The Virginia Piedmont lies in a right triangle. Its 
base is the northern boundary of North Carolina; its 
perpendicular the fall line of the Atlantic rivers; and 
its hypotenuse the Blue Ridge mountain range. The 
surface varies from rolling to hilly. The soil is of 
decomposed rocks of the Archean age and contains 
gneiss, mica, granite, porphyry, and iron. It is well 
adapted to wheat, corn, fruits, and tobacco. The only 



2 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177^1861 

considerable rivers of the Piedmont, the James, Poto- 
mac, and Roanoke, are too swift and shoaly to be 
navigable above the fall line except in short stretches, 
or for small boats bound down stream. 

The Valley is a part of the great Appalachian range 
of valleys. It is not a river basin, as its name might 
indicate, but a depressed surface some hundred feet 
below the top of the Blue Ridge on one side and the 
Alleghanies on the other. Within this area are hilly 
elevations which set apart slender valleys many of 
which are unsurpassed for beauty of scenery and fertil- 
ity of soil. The soil is of limestone formation and is 
well adapted to grass, fruit, and wheat. The gaps in 
the Alleghanies and the Blue Ridge at the headwaters 
of the Kanawha and James respectively give openings 
to the east and the west. The rivers of the southern 
portion of the Valley flow toward the Ohio; those of 
the northern to the Atlantic. Thus two natural east- 
and-west thoroughfares join in the central part of the 
state. 

The land west of the Alleghanies slopes very ir- 
regularly to the Ohio. The Alleghany Highlands, a 
portion of this section, is a trough-like area lying be- 
tween the Alleghany Mountains and the Cumberland 
Plateau. The famous ''Glades," or blue-grass country, 
is a part of this section. The Cumberland Plateau is the 
northeastern continuation of the Cumberland Moun- 
tains and paralleling the Alleghanies stretches entirely 
across western Virginia. It has an elevation of from 
one to two thousand feet, and the surface is very un- 
even. The Ohio Valley section is the 'hilly slope from 



INTRODUCTION 3 

the Cumberland Plateau to the Ohio River. The 
country here is of rugged hills interspersed by fertile 
river and creek bottoms. The soil of the bottom land 
is fertile and well adapted to wheat, corn, rye, oats, 
and buckwheat. 

The trans-x\lleghany possesses untold natural re- 
sources. Both the Cumberland Plateau and the Alle- 
ghany Highlands are underlaid by two or more strata 
of bituminous coal and contain valuable building-stone. 
The Ohio Valley section has vast stores of natural gas 
and petroleum, and its pasture lands are unsurpassed 
in excellence. The rivers of this section are navigable 
from their falls in the Cumberland Plateau to the Ohio. 

PART II. SECTIONAL DIFFERENCES IN THE COLONY 

AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS ON THE EVE 

OF THE REVOLUTION 

The history of Virginia has been characterized by 
sectional antagonism. The natural features of her 
territory and the different elements in her population 
made such conflicts inevitable. In the early colonial 
days, even before population advanced into the Pied- 
mont, the frontier settlers chafed under the rule of the 
older and more aristocratic planters. As population 
extended to the westward and became more diverse 
in nationality, the contrasts and conflicts between the 
older and newer societies became more pronounced. 

For the purpose of study, the history of sectional- 
ism in Virginia may be divided into three periods. 
The first period began early in colonial history and 
ended with Bacon's Rebellion and the reforms which 



4 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

followed. The second began when settlement pushed 
into the Piedmont and the inhabitants of that section 
demanded a share in the colonial government. The 
beginning of its end came with the Revolution and the 
accompanying reforms, but the end was not reached 
until the making of adjustments by the constitutional 
convention of 1829-30. The third period began when 
the trans-Alleghany and portions of the Valley de- 
manded a voice in the state government. It ended with 
the Civil War and dismemberment. 

The first phase was a petty contest between the 
newer plantations and counties about Williamsburg 
and to the east thereof and the older counties and 
plantations above on the James. As in subsequent 
contests, so in this one, the inhabitants residing between 
the two contending sections cast lot with the newer 
and more democratic sections. The crisis, Bacon's 
Rebellion, forced the concession of the moderate re- 
forms demanded. 

The second phase was a contest on a larger scale 
between the newer society of the Piedmont and that 
of the older and more aristocratic Tidewater. Under 
the changed conditions of the eighteenth century the 
inhabitants of the former section had need for legisla- 
tion and public expenditures neither understood nor 
appreciated by the older settlements. The petitions 
from the uplands for the construction of roads and 
bridges, for improved navigation of the rivers, and 
for the erection of warehouses and a more adequate 
defense were accordingly passed over with little con- 
sideration and less legislation. In time the denial of 



INTRODUCTION 5 

these requests brought urgent demands for a greater 
share in the government and a democratic aversion to 
the rule of the tidewater aristocracy.^ 

The frontier took advantage of the preliminaries 
to the Revolution to revolt against the misrule and 
indifference of conservatism. The time v^as indeed 
propitious for a change. The aristocrats could not, or 
at least they would not, take an aggressive stand 
against the mother country to which they were attached 
by the ties of affection, the emolument of office, and 
the returns of a lucrative commercial intercourse. The 
old families, the Pendletons, Robinsons, Randolphs, 
Nicholases, Blairs, and Tylers, accordingly forfeited 
leadership to a new and younger generation. Henry 
and Washington, and later Jefferson and Madison, 
each closely identified with the interests of the interior 
and of new families, as their names indicate, assumed 
leadership.^ Their energies were exerted for inde- 
pendence and a democratic government. 

The third phase of sectional strife was mainly a 
contest between a cismontane and a transmontane 
people. It was a contest between an older society with 
its peculiar institutions and a newer society funda- 
mentally different from the older and inadequately 
represented in the law-making bodies. It was a contest 
between the owners of large estates and the owners 
of small farms; between a population largely English 
and one composed of various nationalities; and be- 
tween a people whose economic interests and relations 

^ Spotswood, Letters, II, 93-103. 

^ Rives, Madison, I, 170; Randall, Jefferson, I, 195. 



6 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

were with the South and a people whose interests and 
relations were mainly with the North. Unable to 
control the action of the state in 1861, as the lower 
Tidewater and the Piedmont had controlled the colony 
in 1676 and 1776, most of the trans-Alleghany with- 
drew from the state and formed West Virginia. 

It is the purpose of this study to give an account 
of sectionalism in Virginia only from 1776 to 1861. 
But a sketch of the earlier developments is very neces- 
sary as an introduction. Accordingly an effort will be 
made to trace briefly the settlement of the sections and 
to call attention to their respective institutions and 
customs. 

The industrial, social, and political life of the Tide- 
water centered in the large estate.^ This institution 
had evolved from an abundance of free land, from the 
nature of the agriculture adopted, and from the finan- 
cial failure of the promoters of the colony. About 
1 61 6 financial embarrassment compelled the London 
Company to make land grants to individuals instead 
of waiting for them to be taken by associations of 
individuals as originally proposed. Subsequently the 
discovery of means of curing tobacco in large quanti- 
ties and the use of indentured servants and negro 
slaves made tobacco-raising profitable and preserved 
this method of making land grants, thus giving an 
impetus to the growth of the individual plantation. 

The spread of the plantation system was rapid. 
Following the favorable treaties made with the Indians 

' Bruce, Ec. Hist, of Va., I, 569 ; idem, Social Life of Va., 
chaps, iii, iv. 



INTRODUCTION 7 

In 1622 and 1623 so much land was given to tobacco- 
growing and the consequent extension of the planta- 
tion was so rapid that the Burgesses found it necessary 
to restrict excessive planting by limiting the number 
of plants which a landowner might grow and by 
restricting all trade to Jamestown.^ But attempts at 
restriction were futile; the plantations continued to 
increase in size and numbers. The fertile land along 
the James was soon taken, and population extended 
thence to the lower York peninsula, to the eastern 
shores of the Chesapeake, and finally to the Potomac. 
By the beginning of the eighteenth century this 
aggressive agricultural system had extended along the 
rivers of the Tidewater and occupied an area almost 
as large as the present state of Massachusetts. But 
the continued importation of negroes, the successful 
contests for Indian lands, and the good prices for 
tobacco made people impatient to push farther into the 
interior. Tobacco culture necessitated expansion, the 
plant requiring great fertility of soil and the finest 
quality growing only on new lands. Thus when Spots- 
wood came as royal governor, he found a land craze 
on in the colony not unlike those of more modern 
times. He too caught the land fever, and in response 
to the popular demand organized ''The Order of the 
Knights of the Golden Horseshoe," composed of ad- 
venturers who were willing to cross the mountains. 
Already many land grants had been made above the 
fall line; now numerous others quickly followed.^ 

* Hening, Statutes, I, 163. 

" Spotswood, Letters, II, 1-80; Va. Magazine, XIII, 7. 



8 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

By 1776 the plantation had become the basis of 
society and industry in the Piedmont as well as in 
the Tidewater. Indeed portions of the former section 
had already become exhausted by excessive cropping. 
It should be observed, however, that in 1776 the large 
plantation did not reign supreme in the Piedmont; it 
was simply the basis of the industrial order. As popu- 
lation advanced to the Piedmont foothills and to the 
elevated lands between the rivers, wheat, hemp, flax, 
and corn had become staples and the holdings had 
gradually decreased in size. Although one and two- 
thirds times as large as the Tidewater, the Piedmont, 
in 1790, contained a much smaller negro slave popula- 
tion. Immigrants from the northern colonies, who, as 
will be shown later, had pushed into the Valley, came 
into the Piedmont from the rear. For the most part 
they were conscientiously opposed to slave-holding and 
consequently did not become tobacco-growers. On the 
other hand, the poorer whites of the Tidewater had 
been pushed, by the gradual advance of the plantation, 
into the less desirable lands of the Piedmont. Lack of 
ability and the presence of conscientious scruples pre- 
vented them from becoming large planters. These 
elements constituted a large and influential democratic 
and non-slaveholding population in the Piedmont. 
The Piedmont counties. Orange, Albemarle, Nelson, 
Amherst, Bedford, Franklin, Patrick, and Henry, were 
strongholds of Democracy. 

The society which developed in the Tidewater and 
later extended to the Piedmont, in a somewhat modi- 
fied form to be sure, resembled that of the mother 



INTRODUCTION 9 

country.^ It consisted of several strata separated by 
no clearly marked lines. Along the large rivers there 
were the great landov^ners who lived in a style of 
luxury and extravagance beyond the means of the 
other inhabitants. Immediately below them were the 
''half-breeds," persons descended from the younger 
sons and daughters of the landed proprietors. They 
had all the pride and social tastes of the upper class 
but not its wealth. Then came the "pretenders," men 
of industry and enterprise but not of established 
families. The opportunities afforded by an abundance 
of practically free lands and by commercial ventures 
had enabled them to accumulate wealth and to gain 
admission to the highest social ranks. Below these 
classes were the ''yeomen," most of whom were very 
poor. The system of entail and primogeniture operated 
to preserve these strata intact.'^ A very large portion 
of the inhabitants belonged to the Anglican church, 
which was established by law. The industrial system 
afforded the planter leisure, and he naturally turned 
to society and politics. Incomes were not such as to 
create a voluptuous society, but they did afford the 
means for a generous hospitality. Men frequently 
indulged in intemperance but never forgot to practice 
civility. Social virtues occasionally ran to show and 
haughtiness ; but truth was cherished, and honor was a 
thing to die for.^ 

In theory the government of Virginia resembled 

'Bruce, Ec. Hist, of Va,, II, 163. ^ Wirt, Henry, 32 ff. 

'Jefferson, Notes on Va. (ed. of 1787), 261-70; Tucker, Jeffer- 
son, I, 19. 



lO SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

that of the mother country. The Governor, Council, 
and Burgesses corresponded in their respective func- 
tions to the King, Lx)rds, and Commons. Like the 
English government, that of Virginia was based upon 
a representation of local units and not a representation 
of numbers. The theory that a member of the Bur- 
gesses represented the commonwealth and not the 
county which elected him was not unpopular in colonial 
Virginia.^ In this respect the political theory of the 
Tidewater was diametrically opposed to the principles 
of equal representation for equal numbers which be- 
came so strong in the northern colonies and in the 
Valley of Virginia. 

The government of the Tidewater and the Pied- 
mont was indigenous to the colony. At each step of the 
frontier advance it had adjusted itself to the changing 
needs of the plantation and to the constant necessity 
of a vigilant defense. Following the Indian massacre 
of 1622 the four boroughs along the James became 
judicial and military units, and the plantations were 
grouped into districts for similar purposes. Soon the 
name shire, later changed to county, was applied to 
these units. The official at first intrusted with the 
military command now became the county lieutenant 
and other local officials became the county court. As 
the counties were extended to the westward they were 
increased in size. The engrossment of lands, the 
sparseness of population, and the military regulations^^ 

' Grigsby, Va. Constitutional Convention of i82g~30, 50-80. 

" Each county was required to provide for its own defense 
(Hening, Statutes, III, 284; Grigsby, Va. Constitutional Convention 
of 1829-SO, Z27-Z7 \ Spotswood, Letters, I, December 15, 1710, p. 36). 



INTRODUCTION il 

necessitated larger counties. The practice early de- 
veloped of giving each county two delegates in the 
House of Burgesses. An early attempt to preserve 
political equality between the large and small communi- 
ties by allowing parish representation proved unsatis- 
factory and was abandoned.^ ^ 

In many respects the plantation was a self-sufficing 
institution. Planters had among their slaves carpen- 
ters, coopers, blacksmiths, tanners, shoemakers, spin- 
ners, and weavers.^ ^ The plantation furnished the 
raw material for these embryo manufactures ; the sur- 
plus only went to purchase foreign luxuries and such 
articles as could not be made on the estate. All the 
Virginia planter desired was a free market and credit. 
To him the patronage of manufacturing on a large 
scale was a secondary and incidental thing designed 
chiefly to supply luxuries. In this industrial system 
ocean commerce stood next to agriculture; it was the 
sole means whereby a market could be found. 

The Northern Neck requires special mention. It 
was that long narrow peninsula bounded by the Poto- 
mac and the Rappahannock and a straight line connect- 
ing their sources. In 1661 this immense tract was 
granted to a proprietor. As a proprietorial govern- 
ment it maintained a semi-independence of the colonial 
government down to the Revolution, the proprietors 
having their own land office and enjoying special favors 

^^Hening, Statutes, 1, 545; II, 357. 

^^ Tucker, Jefferson, I, 9 ; Rowland, Mason, I, 99 ; Phillips, 
"Origin and Growth of Southern Black Belts," Am. Hist. Rev., XI, 
803. 



12 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

in taxation.^ ^ Besides, the area possessed great natural 
advantages; the fall line of its rivers was far inland; 
the soil was fertile ; and the low and swamp lands were 
comparatively less extensive than on the James and 
the Roanoke. 

These favorable circumstances caused the eastern 
portion of this section to be taken at a very early date 
by the highest class of planters. Accordingly many 
Cavaliers found homes there in the Cromwell period. 
For generations a large and important settlement on 
the Potomac was spoken of as the "Cavaliers of Cho- 
tonk."^* The custom of making grants for "head- 
rights," so prevalent in other parts of the colony, was 
not followed by the proprietors, who thus excluded a 
large number of small landowners from this area.^^ In 
1776 the society of the Northern Neck was conse- 
quently older and more aristocratic than that of the 
Piedmont south of the James; the frontier character- 
istics had long since disappeared, the plantation having 
spent its force in large areas which were now given up 
to wheat-raising.^^ 

Antipathies naturally arose between this society and 
the newer and more democratic communities south of 
the James. The state of feeling existing between the 
two sections is well brought out in the last will and 
testament of Thomson Mason, brother of George 

" Hening, Statutes, XII, iii. 

'*DeBow, Review, XXX, 77. 

" Bruce, Ec. Hist, of Va., I, 523. 

^® Hening, Statutes, VII, 292 ; William and Mary College Quar- 
terly, XI, 245; DeBow, Review, XXVI, 616; Va. Hist. Mag., XI, 
230 ; Howe, Hist. Coll., 354. 



INTRODUCTION 13 

Mason and an old resident of the Northern Neck. He 
expressly directed that neither of his two sons be per- 
mitted to reside south of the James or below Williams- 
burg before they had attained the age of twenty-one, 
''lest they should imbibe more exalted notions of their 
own importance than I could wish any child of mine 
to possess. "^^ 

The Valley was settled largely by Scotch-Irish and 
Germans.^ ^ The latter constituted so large an element 
of the population that it was found necessary to trans- 
late the laws into their language.^^ German and 
Scotch-Irish pioneers began to pour into the Valley 
about 1726^^ and soon extended settlement along the 
Shenandoah and the South Branch of the Potomac. 
The arrival of these foreign nationalities on the 
frontier at a period before the society and institutions 
of the coast had reached the Blue Ridge constitutes an 
important epoch in Virginia's history. The westward 
advance of her peculiar institutions was thereby inter- 
rupted, and a new society, naturally hostile to things 
Virginian, was planted. 

Settlement moved into the Valley in communities. 
A band of congenial families came and occupied one 
of the many canoe-shaped valleys ; necessity for defense 
made isolated settlement impossible. Each of the 

" Rowland, Mason, II, 77. 

" Langmeister, Leben im Valley in 1752; Schuricht, German 
Element in Va.; Foote, Sketches of Va., 99-^05; Wayland, "The 
Germans in the Valley of Virginia," Va. Mag., IX, X. 

"* Shepherd, Statutes at Large, I, 339- 

"*Kuhn, German and Swiss Settlements in Pa., chap. ii. 



14 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

larger geographic settlements of the Valley had its 
''Irish corner" and ''German settlement." 

The society which developed there was quite unlike 
that east of the Blue Ridge. Here communities became 
self-sufficing instead of devoting themselves to the 
production of the staples. The small villages which 
sprang up in the midst of the community settlement 
contained wagon-makers, shoemakers, saddlers, gim- 
smiths, harness-makers, tanners, etc. Strasburg, Zapp, 
Hamburg, Hinkle, Chrisman, and Amsterdam were 
centers of these small communities. Around these 
villages there were many small farmers. The fertile 
soil and abundant pastures soon created a surplus of 
farm products and live stock; a market was then 
sought. Inadequate means of communication made it 
necessary for the farmer to feed his hay and grain 
and to sell only those products which could walk to 
market.-^ To this commercial activity the inhabitants 
of the small communities soon learned to look for 
means of subsistence. Accordingly all interests co- 
operated in the efforts made to secure good markets 
and means of access to them. The homogeneity of 
interests between the smaller sections soon brought co- 
operation on a large scale. 

The industrial life of the Valley centered in the 
small farm. In 1730 Colonel Carter tried to operate, 
by the use of slave labor, a tract of sixty-three thousand 
acres located on the west bank of the Shenandoah. 
Writing of his failure Kercheval later said: "This 

'^Richmond Enquirer, February 2^, 1820; Niles Register, IX, 
152. 



INTRODUCTION 15 

fine body of land is now subdivided into many most 
valuable farms. "^^ The German settler desired little 
more land than he, with the aid of a large family, could 
cultivate. His skill in agriculture enabled him to 
preserve its productivity and in some instances to en- 
hance it. 

In practice local government in the Valley con- 
formed to that east of the Blue Ridge. The political 
theories, however, differed very widely from those 
entertained in the east. The Germans and Scotch- 
Irish brought to the Valley the sacred traditions of 
years of religious wars, which taught hatred to an 
established church, antipathy to a government by the 
privileged, and a love for civic and personal liberty. 
To the Scotch-Irish, the political leaders, civil liberty 
meant freedom of person, the right of fee-simple 
possession, and an open door to civic honors. They 
believed that free lands made free peoples who had a 
perfect right to form free governments. 

Home life in the Valley was plain and simple. ^^ A 
shabby log hut with numerous children about the door 
and the absence of sen- ants and slaves were not signs 
of a lack of comfort and happiness. The wife and 
children did the spinning and weaving for the family, 
and little attention was paid to society. Religion held 
a prominent place in the daily life. Those churches 
especially noted for piety, the Presbyterian, Baptist, 
Quaker, and Mennonite, flourished there. It was 
only with reluctance that these dissenters gave of their 
means to support an established church. 

22 Kercheval, Hist, of the Valley, 68. ^ Cutler, Cutler, 94. 



i6 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Both spiritually and commercially the Valley and 
the Northern Neck were more intimately connected 
with the North than with the South. Live stock and 
furs found their chief market in Baltimore and Phila- 
delphia, whence came practically all articles of foreign 
manufacture.^"* Preachers and teachers from Yale and 
Princeton had been important factors in shaping the 
intellectual ideas and social customs. Their pious 
energies had early turned to the establishment of insti- 
tutions of learning. In this work Samuel Davies, later 
president of Princeton, was a pioneer. In the west 
Princeton became an active rival to William and Mary. 
In 1747 John Todd, of the Princeton class of that 
year, founded a classical academy in Louisa County. 
In the same year a secondary school, which later be- 
came Washington and Lee University, was founded in 
Augusta by John Brown, a Princeton graduate. In 
1776 Prince Edward Academy, now Hampden- Sidney 
College, w^as founded by Stanhope Smith, of the 
Princeton class of 1769. Many other educational in- 
stitutions were founded by teachers and preachers 
from Princeton and Yale.-^ 

During the years immediately preceding the Revo- 
lution the Valley and the Piedmont formulated an 
effective opposition to the political rule of the Tide- 
water, and sectional parties shaped themselves on both 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Conventi'^n of 1829-30, 452. 

'^William and Mary College Quarterly, VI, 186; Washington 
and Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, p. 54 ; Report of Com. of Ed. 1895-96, 
I, 270. 



INTRODUCTION 17 

local and national issues. ^^ The first stage in the 
breach between the east and the west came in the years 
immediately following the protest against the Stamp 
Act. It was then that the corruption and inefficiency 
of the former section became apparent, and the west 
found a leader in the person of Patrick Henry. 

Many forces operated at this time to bring the east- 
ern leaders into discredit and to precipitate their 
political downfall. The indifference, credulity, and 
aversion to detail on their part permitted corruption 
and barred the way to reform. Dissenters used tell- 
ingly the well-founded charges of corruption against 
the clergy of the established church. Governor Fau- 
quier's genial manners and democratic practices had 
won the hearts of many, who following his example 
gave themselves up to gaming and racing. When the 
governor made his annual visits to favorite planters 
"dice rattled, cards appeared, and money in immense 
sums was lost and won."-' Writing in 1848 Howison 
believed that the contagion of Fauquier's influence had 
not then disappeared from Virginia.-^ 

The west led a revolt against these conditions. The 
occasion came when John Robinson and his associates 
tried to conceal a deficit in the treasury. Robinson 
was one of the most opulent of the landed aristocracy; 
for twenty-five years he had been Speaker of the 
Burgesses; and he had made large loans on private 

^ Grigsby, Constitutional Convention of 1788, in "Va. Hist. 
Coll.," IX, 49. 

2^ Howison, Hist, of Va., II, 47-58. 
^Wirt, Henry (ed. 1838), 37. 



i8 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776^1861 

account to his personal and political friends. "This 
prolific business had continued so long that Robinson 
had finally become a defaulter to an enormous amount; 
and in order to avert the shame and ruin of an ex- 
posure, he and his particular friends .... invented a 
device to be called a public loan office. "^^ From this 
office it was proposed to loan money on landed security, 
by which means Robinson hoped to transfer his private 
loans to the public, to hide his defalcation, and to save 
himself from ruin and exposure. ^^ 

It was under these conditions that Henry became a 
member of the Burgesses and the leader of the dis- 
contented interior. He was eminently fitted for this 
new duty. He prided himself upon being one of the 
common people; in dress, manners, and education he 
was the popular ideal; his family was inteniiarried 
with some of the most prominent new families of the 
interior; already he had championed the popular side 
in the parsons' cause and in efforts to defeat the elec- 
tion of corrupt Burgesses. A thorough democrat him- 
self, he taught his constituency that government was 
instituted solely for the benefit of the governed; that 
the people were the foundation of political power; and 
that offices and honors were created for them. His 
ability as a popular leader finds explanation only in 
the character of the interior of which he was the 
spokesman. '"^^ 

^ Tyler, Henry (ed. 1887), 56. 

^Va. Gazette, May 17, 1765; Journal, House of Burgesses 
(ed. Kennedy 1766-69), x-xxi ; Wirt, Henry, 69-75. 

" For a different statement see Tyler, Henry, 52. 



INTRODUCTION 19 

The public loan office was pushed as a measure 
wise and beneficial, and received the support of many 
honorable and nonsuspecting Burgesses. It was on 
the point of passage when Henry, ignorant of its true 
purpose, arose to condemn the scheme on general prin- 
ciples. *'He laid open with so much energy the spirit 
of favoritism, upon which the proposition was founded, 
and the abuses to which it would lead that it was 
crushed in its birth. "^^ On the final vote he carried 
with him all the delegates from the interior counties. 
The following year Robinson died and his deficit be- 
came public. It was not until then that the real sig- 
nificance of Henry's victory became apparent. His 
popularity at once increased, and the cake of custom 
was soon broken by the repeated blows which he ad- 
ministered to the aristocracy. 

It was in this unpropitious state of things, the east 
divided against the west, that Henry introduced and 
carried the Stamp Act Resolutions. Though intended 
mainly to protest against the actions of the mother 
country, they were in no small degree the product 
of domestic conditions. They were carried by the vote 
of the united interior against the east,^^ led by Peyton 
Randolph, the king's attorney-general, and Edmund 
Pendleton, the protege and bondsman of Robinson. 
Of the activity of the interior on this occasion Grigsby 
says : ''Had the British policy in Ireland been other 
than it was, those resolutions might indeed have been 

^^ Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), IX, 339. 

^Grigsby, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1776, 43. 



20 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

offered, but they would have been rejected by a decisive 
majority."^^ 

The advent of the west to power in 1765 marked 
an important epoch. Young men like Washington and 
Jefferson then saw the aristocracy exposed and repudi- 
ated. Jefferson, then a man of twenty-three, stood at 
the door of the Burgesses while the vote on the Stamp 
Act Resolutions was being taken. When they were 
declared carried, it was with disgust that he saw and 
heard Peyton Randolph emerge from the door and 
with an oath exclaim : ''I would have given five hun- 
dred guineas for a single vote."^^ 

These years mark also a formative period in polit- 
ical ideas. The questions raised by Coke on Littleton 
and by Blackstone were then being comprehended. 
Ideas of natural and individual rights continued to 
grow in favor and to master the minds of political 
thinkers. Meanwhile young men of aristocratic fami- 
lies refused to rest under the opprobium of corrup- 
tion and inefficiency and joined the ranks of the 
reformers. Prominent among such were Richard 
Henry Lee and George Wythe. A large number of 
conservatives continued however to oppose a stubborn 
resistance to the democratic tendencies and to take 
their cue from the English royalty. Under these condi- 
tions the natural aversion of the interior to the rule of 
kings and the privileged became more pronounced. 

The differences between the east and the west were 

"* Grigsby, Constitutional Convention of 1788, in "Va. Hist. 
Coll.," IX, 49. 

"The resolutions were carried by one vote (Wirt, Henry, 79). 



INTRODUCTION 21 

not, however, wholly theoretical. The inhabitants of 
the latter section were impatiently waiting to enter 
promised land bounties beyond the Alleghanies and 
desired the Burgesses to push their claims. In the 
Quebec Act, Dunmore's relations with the Indians, and 
the Royal Proclamation of 1763, prohibiting settlers 
and traders to pass beyond the Alleghanies, they pro- 
fessed to see acts designed to deprive them of new 
homes and to call upon them the wrath of the savage. 
The inhabitants of northeastern Virginia were also 
aggrieved at these acts. Because of the engrossing of 
lands this area was now overpopulated, and the in- 
habitants, averse as they were to finding new homes in 
southern Virginia, were looking to the trans-Alleghany 
country. Washington and Mason had already seen 
the opportunity which the lands of the new west 
afforded and were preparing to profit by it as well as 
to afford an outlet to the congested communities in 
which they lived. 

In 1774 inhabitants of the Valley petitioned the 
Burgesses for permission to enter the western lands. ^^ 
The following year Augusta County addressed a peti- 
tion to the Continental Congress praying that Virginia 
and Pennsylvania be empowered to make treaties with 
the Indians. On the other hand the east tried to con- 
serve the interests of the mother country. In this work 
the clergy was particularly active. Beginning with 
1760 they conducted more or less systematic persecu- 
tions of dissenters until 1775.^^ 

"^Journal, House of Burgesses (ed. Kennedy), 1773-76, 127. 
^^ James, Struggle for Religious Liberty in Va., 29. 



22 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The petitions to the Burgesses also reveal a grow- 
ing desire on the part of the interior for internal im- 
provements. From the counties of the Piedmont south 
of the James came requests for warehouses ;^^ inhabit- 
ants of the Northern Neck desired the improved navi- 
gation of the Potomac and a road from Alexandria to 
the Blue Ridge ;^^ a petition from Frederick County 
suggested that the improved navigation of the Potomac 
from the head of tidewater "would be productive of 
great advantages, not only to those who are settled 
upon the adjacent lands, but to the whole country ;"^^ 
citizens of Frederick and Hampshire complained that 
they were unable "to supply the King's troops of the 
western department with provisions because of the 
extreme badness of the roads from this government to 
Fort Pitt," and requested that Braddock's road be made 
a public highway.^^ 

Differences between the east and the west perpetu- 
ated the sectional parties of 1765. Delegates from 
fourteen counties, lying wholly or partly in the Tide- 
water, did not sign the non-importation agreement of 
1769, while delegates from but six interior counties 
did not sign it.^^ Practically the same proportion 
holds between the delegates of the east and the west 

^Journal, House of Burgesses (ed. Kennedy), 1766-69, 218; 
ibid., \7yo-72, 5, 124. 

^ Ibid., 1766-69, 253; ibid., 1770-72, 206. 

*^ Ibid., 1770-72, 252, 258. 

*^ Ibid., 1766-69, 100, 109. 

*^ Ibid., 1766-69; Int., XLI ; Grigsby, Va. Constitutional Con- 
vention of 1776, 34. 



INTRODUCTION 23 

who signed the associations of 1770 and 1774. Of 
the sectional parties in Virginia in 1775 Grigsby said: 

No error is more common than to refer the origin of party 
division in the CommonweaUh to the present convention [1788]. 
Long before that time parties had been founded, not only on 
state topics but on those connected with the federal government. 
From the passage of the Stamp Act to the time when eleven 
years later an independent state government was formed there 
had been a palpable line drawn through the parties of the 
country.*^ 

*^ Grigsby, Constitutional Convention of 1788, in "Va. Hist. 
Coll.," IX, 49. 



CHAPTER II 

REVOLUTION, CONFEDERATION, AND THE 
CONSTITUTION, 1776-90 

With more tangible grievances to redress, the in- 
habitants of the interior were ahead of the lowlanders 
in the movement for independence. While the Tide- 
water men were deliberating on peaceful reconciliation, 
large numbers in the Piedmont and the Valley were 
being organized into military companies by such 
patriots as Hugh Mercer, Horatio Gates, Peter 
Muhlenburg, Daniel Morgan, and William Drake, who 
later figured as officers and generals in the Continental 
army. It was not until Lord Dunmore declared the 
colony in a state of war, offered freedom to negro 
slaves and indentured servants, ravaged the country by 
the use of armed vessels, and burned the chief com- 
mercial city, Norfolk, that the inhabitants of the Tide- 
water seriously thought of armed resistance to British 
misrule.^ Even then, some refused to take up arms; 
they thought the radicals unduly aggressive. Some 
had sons in English colleges ; others enjoyed the emolu- 
ments of office ; a general spirit of pride in the mother 
country prevailed; and there was a strong desire to 
retain the commercial advantages to be derived from 
a dependence upon her.^ 

^ Force, Am. Archives, 4th series, III, 387, 1385; Bancroft, 
Hist, of U. S., IV, 254, 320; Hunt, Madison, i. 

^ Va. Gazette, April 26, 1776; Frothingham, Rise of the Repub- 
lic, 509. 

24 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 25 

When the uprising did come, however, it was gen- 
eral. Except in Accomac, Northampton, and Norfolk 
counties and in the Quaker and Mennonite communi- 
ties of the interior, there were few Tories in Virginia. 
May 6, 1776, the House of Burgesses, assembled at 
Williamsburg, unanimously declared that Great Britain 
had subverted the ancient constitution of the colony. 
Accordingly the House of Burgesses was disbanded, 
and the last official connection with the mother country 
disappeared. 

On the same day another body, consisting largely 
of the selfsame disbanded Burgesses, and declaring 
itself a constitutional convention, convened in the 
very hall of the suspended House of Burgesses. In 
personnel this body represented the two extremes of 
the Virginia communities. Grigsby speaks thus of it: 
You mark, indeed, a variety of character in those manly 
faces, and in those stalwart forms a various costume. You can 
tell the men who come from the bay counties and from the 
banks of the large rivers, and who, from the felicity with 
which they could exchange their products for British goods, are 
clothed in foreign fabricks. You can also tell those who lived 
off from the great arteries of trade, far in the interior, in the 
shadow of the Blue Ridge, in the Valley, and in that splendid 
principality .... West Augusta. These are mostly clad in 
homespun or in the more substantial buckskin.^ 

This body had been invited by the Continental 
Congress to form a new state government and to con- 
sider the relations between the colonies and the mother 
country. The conservatives, with Robert Carter Nich- 
olas and Edward Pendleton as principal spokesmen, 

'Grigsby, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1776, 35. 



26 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

were not yet ready to sever every bond of dependence. 
The colonial conventions of 1774 and 1775 had said 
nothing about independence, and they deemed an 
irrevocable step unwise. It was useless, however, to 
try to withstand the tide of popular sentiment. The 
delegates from the interior county of Buckingham 
presented the following command from their constit- 
uents : "We instruct you to cause a total and final 
separation from Great Britain to take place as soon 
as possible;" it also directed them to establish a con- 
stitution providing for "a, full representation and 
free and frequent elections."^ The people of West 
Augusta, Transylvania, and of the Holston and 
Watauga valleys sent similar instructions. Led by 
Henry, the west believed that forbearance had ceased 
to be a virtue and that independence was not only 
necessary but inevitable. The fight between the con- 
servatives and democrats began in the very organiza- 
tion of the convention, when Henry's nominee, 
Thomas Ludwell Lee, contested unsuccessfully against 
Edmund Pendleton for election to the chairmanship.^ 
The crisis came on May 15, 1776, when Archibald 
Gary reported those famous resolutions directing the 
Virginia delegation in the Gontinental Gongress to 
propose to that body a declaration of independence 
for the United States and giving the assent of Virginia 
to the same. Notwithstanding the fact that these reso- 
lutions passed without division, they were opposed by 

* Bancroft, Hist, of U. S., IV, 414; Hunt, Madison, 6. 
' Grigsby, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1776, 14; Camp- 
bell, Hist, of Va., 644. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 27 

a strong conservative minority. George Mason, the 
master spirit of the convention, later wrote Richard 
Henry Lee: "One thing is clear in my mind, that the 
three great resolutions .... v^ere carried by the 
western vote, that is, by the vote of the members living 
north and v^est of Richmond, as were the leading 
measures of reform some years later. "^ 

The resolution for independence was accompanied 
by another which proposed that a committee be ap- 
pointed to draw up a declaration of rights and a plan 
of state government. This was carried and the com- 
mittee was instructed to frame such a plan "as will be 
most likely to maintain peace and order in the colony 
and to secure substantial and equal liberty to the 
people." In the debates on this resolution, sectional 
differences became very pronounced. But the west 
was now handicapped; Henry, its leader, was not a 
constructive statesman, and his oratory availed little 
in constitution making. Accordingly leadership passed 
to a more conservative man, the celebrated George 
Mason, of Gunston Hall. 

Mason was untouched by theories of extreme 
democracy. He had nevertheless a keen sympathy for 
the principles of English liberty as expressed in the 
English constitutional documents, and he was in sym- 
pathetic touch with the democratic movement in the 
colony. He was a sound scholar, especially well 
versed in the legislative and political history of his 
country. Unlike most of the landed aristocracy, he 
was free from political ambitions. He was immovable 

" Grigsby, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1776, 44. 



28 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

in his convictions, forceful and uncompromising in 
debate. He now stood between the radicals and con- 
servatives, and his ability as a leader of men made 
him master of the situation J 

On May 27, Archibald Gary reported to the con- 
vention a Declaration of Rights drawn by Mason. It 
set forth the principles that all men are born equally 
free and independent; that all power is by God and 
nature vested in and consequently derived from the 
people; that magistrates are the trustees of the people 
and at all times amenable to them ; that government is 
for the common benefit, protection, and security of 
the people; that elections of members to the legislature 
ought to be free ; that all men having common interest 
with and attachment to the commxunity have the right 
of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their 
property for public use without their consent; and 
lastly, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration.^ 

Although founded upon political theory and evoked 
by abuses from abroad these declarations were, in no 
small degree, the product of ten years of sectional 
antagonism within the colony. Their sentiments were 
those which Henry had instilled into the minds of the 
frontier people; they were the principles which had 
mastered the minds of Jefferson and Madison, after- 
ward their greatest exponents. Thoughts on Govern- 
ment by John Adams, and Common Sense by Thomas 
Paine had fallen upon receptive minds in the Piedmont 
and the Valley. Requests for freedom of elections 

"^ Rowland, Mason, I, 235. 
'Ibid., 240. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 29 

and for general suffrage were, as has been seen, a 
feature of the instructions which the frontier delegates 
bore to the convention. Baptists and other dissenters 
petitioned for toleration in the new government and 
tried to secure the election of delegates favorable 
thereto.^ 

Robert Carter Nicholas feared that the Declaration 
of Rights would be a forerunner of civil convulsion. 
To him that clause which declared all men naturally 
free and equal was especially objectionable. Nicholas, 
Braxton, and Pendleton were not unfavorable to a 
government of monarchical tendencies. Braxton ably 
defended their position in an essay entitled An Ad- 
dress to the Convention of the Colony and Ancient 
Dominion on the Subject of Government}^ 

In the plan of government conservative principles 
triumphed, although the victory was not apparent at 
the time. The right of suffrage was restricted to 
those who then exercised it,^^ and each county, regard- 
less of its size and population, was assigned two mem- 
bers of the House of Delegates.^- Although not made 
a part of the constitution, the convention divided the 
state into twenty-four districts, each entitled to elect 

^Religious Herald, July, 1888; Semple, Va. Baptists, 62; 
Frestoe, Hist, of Ketocton Association, 90. 

^° Tyler, Henry, 179. 

" Persons owning twenty-five acres of improved or one hun- 
dred acres of unimproved land were admitted to suffrage together 
with certain artisans residing in Norfolk and Williamsburg (Re- 
vised Code of 1 8 19, I, 38). 

" Williamsburg, Norfolk, and Richmond were each given an 
additional delegate. 



30 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

one senator. The country west of the Blue Ridge was 
given only four senators, and no provision was made 
for amending the constitution, extending suffrage, or 
reapportioning representation in either house. ^^ 

The constitution, however, was not a complete 
triumph for the conservatives. Members of both 
houses of the Assembly were made elective by the 
people, and elections for the most popular house were 
to be held annually. The legislative department was 
made supreme; it elected the governor and restricted 
his actions by associating with him an Executive 
Council. The higher members of the judiciary de- 
partment were also made elective by the Assembly. 

The reform spirit of the frontier and the general 
enthusiasm over the Revolution enabled the democratic 
element to control the first Assembly elected under the 
new constitution and temporarily allayed the opposi- 
tion of the conservatives. The time was indeed 
opportune for the appearance of a constructive states- 
man. Mason having refused to serve his people 
longer as a legislator, a new leader was forthcoming 
in the person of Thomas Jefferson, who in order to 
carry forward the reform movement in Virginia had 
declined a re-election to the Continental Congress.^"* 

Jefferson was peculiarly fitted for leadership at 
this time. The state was rent by differences between 
dissenters and conforming churchmen, but he was a 
believer in no creed. Educated at William and Marv 
and reared under the tutelage of Wythe, Tucker, and 

^^ Poore, Charters and Constitutions, Part II, 1910. 
"Randall, Jefferson, I, 195; Rives, Madison, I, 170. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 31 

Pendleton, he had friends and admirers among the 
most influential conservatives. Besides, he had had 
abundant opportunity to know and appreciate their 
conception of society and politics. Himself a member 
of the landed aristocracy and possessed of an infusion 
of patrician blood/ ^ he was not at first distrusted. 
The secret of Jefferson's ability as a leader at this time 
lay, however, in the fact that he was a democrat of the 
frontier type. Born on the outskirts of the charmed 
and corrupt circle of conservatism and in the demo- 
cratic air of the mountains, he loved simplicity and 
equality. The precocious child of a pioneer surveyor, 
he had the frontiersman's outlook on things, which 
has done so much to shape American policies and insti- 
tutions. Reared on a farm devoted largely to wheat 
culture and under the democratic influence of the dis- 
senters, he had little sympathy with the institution of 
negro slavery either practically or theoretically. He 
was not an agitator, however, and struck only when he 
knew his blows would tell.^^ 

The subject of most importance before the first 
Assembly involved the continuation of the established 
church.^ ^ The effort to retain it met opposition from 
the dissenters and some Anglicans, and precipitated 

"* Jefferson's mother was Jane Randolph. Of his patrician an- 
cestry he was accustomed to speak thus : "They [his mother's 
people] trace their pedigree far back in England and Scotland, to 
which let every one ascribe the faith and merit he chooses." — 
Morse, Jefferson, 3. 

" See Randall, Jefferson, I, chap, i ; Parton, Jefferson, chaps, 
i-ix ; Morse, Jefferson, 4-8. 

"Hunt, Am. Hist, Asso. Rept., 1901, I, 165-71. 



32 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the first great sectional conflict in the state. For years 
Baptist associations and Presbyterian congregations 
had petitioned for toleration, and now their efforts 
were renewed with increased vigor. A memorial from 
the Valley reminded the Assembly "that nothing is 
more necessary in the present struggle than a union of 
mind and strength" and suggested disestablishment as 
a means of effecting it.^^ Numerous petitions from the 
west asked that the laws of the state be made to har- 
monize with the Declaration of Rights and the spirit 
of American liberty. The most significant memorial 
on this subject came, however, from the Hanover 
Presbytery. It avowed devotion to the state institu- 
tions but reminded the Assembly that "in the frontier 
the dissenters have borne the heavy burden of purchas- 
ing glebes and supporting the established clergy where 
there are very few Episcopalians either to assist in 
bearing the expense or to reap the advantages." It 
also alleged that intolerance had driven population 
from Virginia and reduced her to the necessity of 
calling in strangers to fight her battles. It ended by 
asking that the state laws be made to conform to the 
Declaration of Rights, the Magna Carta of the com- 
monwealth.^^ 

Members of the established church, residing in the 
Tidewater, also sent memorials. They pleaded the 
inviolability of the contracts by which the church held 
property and the efficiency of an established church in 
maintaining peace and happiness. ^^ 

^^ Journal, House of Delegates, 1776, 48. 
"^Ibid., 24. -""Ibid., 47. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION S3 

In response to these memorials the Assembly took 
the initial step toward disestablishment; the salaries 
of the clergy were suspended for 1776, an act repeated 
annually until 1779. Opposition was too strong, how- 
ever, to effect the whole change at once. 

The reform movement of 1776 was not confined to 
attacks upon the established church. It was at this 
time that Jefferson struck the first blow at the landed 
aristocracy by an act abolishing entails. ^^ It would 
be almost impossible to overestimate the effect of this 
law in producing democratic equaHty in Virginia. In 
1833 Henry Clay, a native of Virginia and thoroughly 
in touch with the changes wrought there, said, in 
speaking of the effects of the abolition of entail : 

In whose hands now are the once proud seats of Westover, 
Cerles, Maycocks, Shirly, and others on the James and in lower 
Virginia? They have passed into other and stranger hands. 
Some of the descendants of illustrious parentage have gone to 
the far West, while others lingering behind have contrasted 
their present condition with that of their venerated ancestors. 
They behold themselves excluded from their fathers' houses, 
now in the hands of those who were once their fathers' over- 
seers, or sinking into decay .^ 

The Assembly of 1776 also gave special privileges to 
the frontier county courts; increased the representa- 
tion of the west by acts creating new counties; and 
appointed a committee to revise and amend the laws 
of the state.^^ 

^ Hening, Statutes, IX, 226; Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), 
II, 102. 

"^Congressional Debates, VIII, Part I, 290. 
*^ Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), II, 116. 



34 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

"The Committee on Revision" was composed of 
Jefferson, Mason, Wythe, Pendleton, and Thomas L. 
Lee, all reformers except Pendleton. It continued its 
labors for two years and did not make a final report 
until 1779. The report shows the handiwork of Jeffer- 
son. It contained his famous bill for religious liberty, 
which its author ranked next to the Declaration of 
Independence; it recommended the division of the 
counties into townships for the purpose of establishing 
free schools; and it contemplated the emancipation of 
the negro slaves. ^^ 

These radical recommendations struck the con- 
servatives with consternation. Meanwhile, there had 
been a reaction against reform, and a new alignment 
of parties was in process of formation. The enthusi- 
asm for the democratic principles of the Revolution 
had waned somewhat, and the abolition of entails 
arrayed against Jefferson the landed aristocracy. Cha- 
grined at being displaced from his position as popular 
leader, Henry lost enthusiasm for the cause of reform 
and drew closer to the conservatives.^^ The transfer 
of the seat of war to the South also diverted attention 
to the matter of defense. 

Under these changed conditions reform was 
checked. Yet an act of 1779 relieved the dissenters 
from the necessity of supporting the established 

^■'Jefferson, Notes on Va. (ed. of 1801), 268, 284; Jefferson, 
Writings (ed. Ford), II, 201. 

^ This was the beginning of an irreparable breach between 
Jefferson and Henry (Jefferson, Writings [ed. Ford], II, 102; 
Jefferson, Autobiography, I, 49 ; Tucker, Jefferson, I, 97-99 ; Ran- 
dall, Jefferson, I, 199-201). 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 35 

church, and "to secure the equal rights of all" the 
capitol was removed to Richmond. ^^ But further 
consideration of the recommendations of the Com- 
mittee on Revision was postponed. Jefferson was in 
turn shelved by being made governor, a disposal more 
than once resorted to for Virginia leaders deemed 
dangerous in the Assembly. On the other hand, 
Henry returned to the House of Delegates to oppose 
the reforms which Jefferson had inaugurated, and to 
regain his popularity. ^^ 

As governor, Jefferson did not have smooth sail- 
ing. The constitution makers of 1776 had purposely 
made the executive weak and helpless. ^^ Reinforced 
by Henry, the opposition in the Assembly soon out- 
numbered the followers of Jefferson. To begin with, 
parties had been pretty evenly divided. John Page, 
the conservative candidate for governor, had received 
61 votes and Jefferson only 6y}^ The British in- 
vasions fell most heavily upon the conservative parts 
of the state, and the failure to check them caused ad- 
verse criticism to be heaped upon *'the political theorist 
and impractical statesman," who presided in the 
capitol. Two days after the expiration of Jefferson's 
term as governor he was forced to retire from the 
temporary seat of government, Charlottesville, to avoid 
capture by the British dragoons detailed especially 
for the purpose of his apprehension. Notwithstanding 

^ Hening, Statutes, X, 85 ; Randall, Jefferson, I, 222,. 
^ Tyler, Henry, 262, 263. 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 472. 
"'Journal, House of Del., 1779, 29. 



36 



SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 



the facts that he was no longer governor and that a 
large number of the assemblymen had already fled to 
Staunton beyond the Blue Ridge, the censure heaped 
upon him was unrelenting. The Assembly appointed 
an investigating committee which, however, completely 
exonerated him from all charges of negligence.^^ 

Smarting under censure and chagrined at the 
successes of the conservatives, Jefferson retired from 
public Hfe to his plantation in Bedford County. M. 
de Marbois, secretary of the French foreign legation 
at Philadelphia, had already directed twenty-three 
questions to him designed to bring out information 
regarding Virginia. Jefferson set himself assiduously 
to the task of preparing answers thereto. His replies 
took the form of a volume entitled Notes on Virginia. 

In this book Jefferson continued his fight for 
reform. Some of its chapters abound in sweeping 
strictures upon the constitution of 1776 and the anti- 
democratic tendencies in the state. To show the in- 
equalities in representation in the Assembly he pre- 
pared the following table : 



Square 

Miles 



Fighting 
Men 



Delegates 



Senators 



Between the sea and the falls of 
the rivers 

Between the falls of the rivers and 
the Blue Ridge of mountains . . . 

Between the Blue Ridge of moun- 
tains and the Alleghanies 

Between the Alleghanies and the 
Ohio 



11,265 

18,759 
11,911 
70,650 



19,012 
18,828 

7>673 

4,458 



71 
46 
16 
16 



12 



^Journal, House of Del., 1781, 37. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 37 

By this data he showed that nineteen thousand fight- 
ing men, residing in the Tidewater, were practically 
able to make the law and appoint the officers for over 
thirty thousand others. ^^ The volume deals at length 
with the proposed reforms of 1779. He unhesitat- 
ingly attributed their defeat to the conservatives. In 
connection with the British invasions and the excite- 
ment which they occasioned, Jefferson intimated that a 
movement had been on foot to make Henry dictator, a 
charge which widened the breach between himself and 
the hero of 1765 and 1776.^^ 

The west was also displeased with the conduct of 
the war; it did not, however, criticize Jefferson. 
Augusta and Rockbridge counties petitioned against 
the practice of drafting their residents for service in 
the Continental army to make good the quotas from 
the eastern counties and asked that soldiers be appor- 
tioned among the several counties on a property 
valuation basis.^^ Andrew Moore, of Rockbridge, in- 
troduced a resolution to compel the eastern counties to 
fill their quotas in the Continental army.^* Berkeley 
and Jefferson counties petitioned against the draft 
system, the quartering of prisoners, and the contem- 
plated dictatorship.^^ 

In 1783 reform again became an issue. The con- 
servative reaction had but slightly decreased the num- 

^^ Notes on Va., 161, 162. 

^^ Henry, Henry, II, 144, 231; Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), 
VIII, 368; Randall, Jefferson, I, 348-52; Tyler, Henry, 197. 

^Journal, House of Del., 1781, 8, 18, 22. 
^Ibid., 25. "^Ibid., 12, 27. 



SS SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ber of the memorials which the dissenters were 
annually sending to the Assembly. In addition to 
relief from the necessity of supporting the established 
church, dissenters now desired the privilege of solem- 
nizing marriages and a share in the use of the churches 
and the glebes purchased at public expense. ^^ After the 
peace of 1783 the Episcopal church fell into greater 
disfavor. Some of its clergy had sympathized with the 
mother country and others yet rested under the charge 
of corruption. Accordingly the Assembly of 1783 was 
flooded with memorials praying for complete disestab- 
lishment. Other memorials asked for a constitutional 
convention, internal improvements, and administrative 
reform. 

Jefferson, now in France, intrusted the work of 
reform to James Madison, who was eminently quali- 
fied for the task. He too was born and reared in the 
Piedmont foothills on the outskirts of conservatism. 
He was, however, a member of the established church. 
His father was vestryman of Saint Thomas parish; 
his mother was a devout communicant ; and his cousin, 
also called James Madison, was president of William 
and Mary and later became the first Episcopal bishop 
of Virginia. But while at Princeton, where he studied 
and graduated, Madison breathed another atmosphere 
than that of the Virginia vestry. ^^ He there became 
attached to the principles of complete toleration. He 
spoke but once in the constitutional convention of 
1776, and then it was in behalf of religious liberty. 

'^Journal, House of Del., ist sess., 1783, 22 ; ibid., 2d sess., 10, 37. 
"Hunt, Am. Hist. Asso. Rept., 1901, I, 165-71. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 39 

Although he had not protested in 1776, he was opposed 
to the undemocratic principles of the constitution 
adopted at that time. Meanwhile he had discussed 
with Jefferson and others both the necessity and man- 
ner of making Virginia's a true republican government. 
Although cold and reserved, his simple courteous 
manners and dignified modesty attracted strangers, 
who soon became friends. ^^ 

In the fight for disestablishment Madison w^ aided 
by the brothers, George and William Gary Nicholas, 
both residents of Gharlottesville and intimate friends 
of Jefferson. Gonfronted by this triumvirate and 
conscious of the fact that the days of the established 
church were numbered, the Anglicans^ asked the 
Assembly to incorporate the Protestant Episcopal 
Ghurch of Virginia and to pass a general assessment 
act. The former was to give the established church 
legal title to the churches, glebes, and all property 
whatsoever then in its possession; the latter required 
each and every taxpayer to contribute to the support of 
some church. Bothvbills were introduced by Henry, 
himself a member of the established church, and 
received his earnest support.^^ The decline of the 
established church and the increase of crime and dis- 
honesty brought the bills into favor with Washington, 
Richard Henry Lee, Tazewell, and Marshall. By this 
time most of the conservatives were willing to admit 

^ Hunt, Madison, chaps, i-iii ; ibid., 272, 273 ; Rives, Madi- 
son, I, chap. i. 

^Madison, Writings (ed. Cong.), I, 88; Tyler, Henry, 262; 
Rives, Madison, I, 602, 



40 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

that there might be other roads to heaven, but they 
were sure that no gentleman would choose any other 
than the Episcopal. 

Henry was able to secure the passage of the act of 
incorporation,^^ but Madison succeeded in having the 
final vote on the act providing for assessment post- 
poned until the next meeting of the Assembly. Mean- 
while the bill was ordered printed and distributed to 
enable the people to make expressions of their will. 
During the summer and autumn of 1785 the assess- 
ment bill was the theme of discussion in all parts of 
the state. At the instigation of George Nicholas, 
Madison prepared a remonstrance against it. This 
document received thousands of signatures in the 
interior and on the frontier. The enthusiasm called 
forth floods of memorials to the Assembly. Those 
from the vicinity of Henry's home, Henry County, 
and from the Tidewater were generally favorable to 
assessment.'*^ But the Presbyterians of the Valley and 
the Baptists of the Piedmont denounced the proposed 
law as a contravention of the Declaration of Rights 
and the spirit of American liberty.^^ The Methodists 
now cast lot with the dissenters, thinning the ranks of 
the established church in the Tidewater and the Pied- 
mont, where Asbury, Coke, Lee, and Jarratt had a 
very numerous following. 

*° As a strategic move Madison voted for the incorporation act 
(Writings [ed. Hunt], II, 88). 

*'• Randall, Jefferson, I, 222 ; Hunt, Madison, 84, 85 ; Journal, 
House of Del., 2d sess., 1785, 6, 8, 19, 29, 30. 

*^Ihid., 6, 8, 9, 10, II, 18, 19, 21, 26, 34. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 41 

In the excitement which followed this agitation the 
assessment bill disappeared from sight, and Jefferson's 
bill of 1779 was resurrected and made a law.^^ The 
act of incorporation which gave the Episcopalians 
legal title to the property then in their possession 
continued, however, to be a law. Accordingly peti- 
tions continued to come to the Assembly asking that 
it be repealed and that all church property, purchased 
by taxation, be sold and the proceeds converted into a 
public fund, or that such property be thrown open to 
the use of all denominations.^'* So persistent was the 
fight waged that the incorporation act was finally re- 
pealed. The triumph of Jefferson in 1799 brought 
the enactment of a law to deprive all denominations 
of special benefits. Thus the first great sectional con- 
flict ended in the complete separation of the church 
and the state. 

These years also witnessed other reform move- 
ments and sectional antagonisms. In 1784 Madison, 
in an elaborate speech, renewed the demand of the 
interior for constitutional reform ;^^ Methodists and 
Quakers petitioned the Assembly for the abolition of 
negro slavery ;^^ the interior secured the enactment of 
a law encouraging manumissions of negro slaves ;^^ and 

^^Hening, Statutes, XII, 84. 

*^ Journal, House of Del., 1786-87, 13, 15, 24, 31. 
^ Ibid., ist sess., 1784, 70; Madison, Writings, I, 82. 
^Journal, House of Del., 26. sess., 1780, 32; ibid., 26. sess., 
1785, 27. 

*^ Herxing, Statutes, XI, 39. 



42 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

an attempt to remove the capitol to Williamsburg was 
defeated. ^^ The differences between the east and west 
were most pronounced on economic questions. The 
latter section secured the passage of an act restricting 
the number of ports of entry to five, a measure de- 
signed to afford home markets to farm products and 
live stock by fostering cities.^^ To secure a market for 
their products the western delegates also placed a duty 
upon imported wines, rum, cheese, beef, pork, iron, 
and hemp.^^ George Mason strenuously resisted these 
impost duties on the ground that they would make the 
east dependent upon the west.^^ The western counties 
also petitioned for time indulgences in the payment of 
taxes and for the privilege of paying all public dues 
in farm products.^^ 

The first years of the Revolution mark an impor- 
tant period in the westward extension of Virginia's 
population. Following the wake of the armies which 
went to defend and conquer, settlers pushed into the 
trans-Alleghany country. The absence of hostile Indian 
tribes and an abundance of fertile and untimbered 
lands attracted the first immigrants to Kentucky. By 
the end of the period treated in this chapter settlers 
had entered northwestern Virginia in large numbers. 

*^ Journal J House of Del., ist sess., 1784, 51. 

^ Rives, Madison, I, 548; Va. Hist. Coll., X, 310, 319. The 
east never became reconciled to this law and soon procured its 
repeal (Journal, House of Del., 1788, 31). 

•^ Hening, Statutes, XII, 412. 

" Rowland, Mason, II, 204. 

^Journal, House of Del., ist sess., 1783, 32; ibid., 2d sess., 
1784, 95; Va, Hist. Coll., X, 67, 77, 91, 204. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 43 

In 1790 the trans-Alleghany population numbered 
more than one hundred thousand. This unprecedented 
movement of population at a time when every man 
was a law unto himself, gave to the new frontier 
society an unusually intense individualistic spirit. 

The first conflict of the frontiersmen was not with 
the eastern aristocrats; it was with the savages and 
with the land companies and individuals who claimed 
priorities to the new lands. The companies and indi- 
vidual claimants of large grants petitioned the Assem- 
bly for a recognition of their titles,^^ but counter peti- 
tions full of the germs of squatter sovereignty came 
from the individual settlers. Citizens of Botetourt 
County said: "We have settled in the west and de- 
fended it for years against the savage, in consequence 
of which we hoped to have obtained a just and equi- 
table title to our possessions, without being obliged to 
contribute large sums of money for the separate 
emolument of individuals."^^ The of^cers and soldiers 
of the Continental army, who had received promises of 
land bounties, joined the pioneers in a protest against 
the claims of those trying to monopolize the west.^^ 

Under the direction of Jefferson, the acts and reso- 
lutions passed in response to these petitions favored 
decidedly the individual claimants. The Indiana and 
Vandalia companies were informed that "no person 
or persons have or ever had a right to purchase lands 

^Journal, House of Del., 2d sess., 1778, 28, 42, 47, 70, 74, 
92, 97. 

^Ibid., 1777, 31. 

^ Ibid., 2d sess., 1778, 40. 



44 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

of the Indians for themselves, and that all purchases 
hitherto made had inured to the state. "^^ The Assem- 
bly also addressed a memorial to the Continental Con- 
gress denying the rights of the Indiana and Vanda- 
lia companies to lands within the sovereign territory 
of Virginia.^"^ Surveys made by land companies prior 
to 1763 were confirmed, but those made subsequent to 
that date were declared invalid. ^^ In response to indi- 
vidual requests land prices were reduced to two cents 
per acre, land agents and surveyors were sent to the 
interior, and a general land office was established. 
Individual enterprise was further encouraged by giving 
to each actual settler a "settlement right" to four 
hundred acres and a "pre-emption right" to one 
thousand acres adjoining.^^ 

Virginia's liberality in granting her unoccupied 
lands did not prove to be good policy. True, large 
numbers of settlers were early attracted to the state, 
where they made permanent homes, but much of the 
land fell into the hands of speculators. Companies 
were formed in both Europe and America to deal in 
Virginia lands, which were bought up in large tracts 
at the trifling cost of two cents per acre.^^ This 
wholesale engrossment soon consumed practically all 

'^Journal, House of Del., ist sess., 1777, 39. 
"Ibid., 2d sess., 1779, 55, 84. 
^ Ibid., 26. sess., 1777, 87, 88. 
^ Hening, Statutes, X, 35-65. 

^Debates of Congress, 22 Cong., 2d sess., IX, Part I, 142. 
The Land Books of Kanawha County for the year 1791 record 
the ownership of tracts of 150,000 acres each. Joseph Mayo owned 
50,000 acres valued at £2,500 and assessed at £6 5.^. sd. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 45 

the most desirable lands and forced the home-seeker 
to purchase from a speculator or to settle as a squatter. 
Added to these embarrassments were the conflicting 
claims regarding land titles. Under these conditions 
many of the later immigrants moved on to the terri- 
tory beyond the Ohio. In these facts lies a possible 
explanation for West Virginia's retarded develop- 
ment. 

The motives and interests which attracted settlers 
to trans-Alleghany Virginia were determining factors 
in the society and politics of that section. The only 
common object of attraction was the new and cheap 
lands. From the Piedmont of both Virginia and North 
Carolina came those who had been small landowners 
and the landless. In many instances the farmers 
had sold their holdings to retreat from the encroach- 
ing institution of negro slavery. The farmers of 
the Valley sent their sons thither to seek new homes, 
and the graziers of the same section pushed their hold- 
ings into the Alleghany highlands. Others, squatters 
for the most part, came to trap upon the large tracts 
of land held by foreign capitalists. The reports of 
rice, cotton, and tobacco grown upon Wheeling Island 
by Ebenezar Zane^^ and the florid descriptions of the 
genial climate of the new west attracted immigrants 
who hoped to become plantation-owners. These im- 
migrants purchased large tracts of land and in many 
instances brought negro slaves to clear them.^- In 

'^^ Cutler, Cutler, I, 410. 

®^ New Englanders purchased slaves in Maryland and northern 
Virginia and carried them to the banks of the Ohio and the 
Kanawha. 



46 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the years immediately following 1790 immense clear- 
ings were made along the Kanawha and the Ohio riv- 
ers. In some instances overseers conducted this work, 
and in some cases the large-scale operators employed 
the squatters, who were not infrequently paid at the 
rate of one-fourth pound of gunpowder per day. 

The great variety in the natural features and natu- 
ral resources preserved a diversity of economic in- 
terests in the trans-Alleghany section. As has been 
seen, the Tidewater, the Piedmont, and the Valley 
possessed within themselves respectively a practical 
homogeneity of economic interests. They therefore 
tended to act as sections in political matters. But the 
isolation of its nuclei of settlements, the diversity of 
interests, and the difficulty of communication made it 
impossible for the trans-Alleghany country to act as a 
political unit. Thus, while the inhabitants of Ken- 
tucky contemplated the dismemberment of the com- 
monwealth and a political union with either Great 
Britain or Spain, as a means of securing protection 
and commercial advantage, the inhabitants of north- 
western Virginia, on the other hand, supported the 
movement to form a strong national government. 
Against foreign intrigue and Indian attacks the in- 
habitants of the latter section saw their salvation only 
in a continuation of that union which had made inde- 
pendence possible. 

The rapid development of the trans-Alleghany 
section made the subject of internal improvements an 
important one. Commercial intercourse between the 
east and the west now seemed necessary to preserve 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 47 

the integrity of the state and the Union. The Ken- 
tuckians found their only market on the lower 
Mississippi, and commercial relations were developing 
between New Orleans and the northwestern part of 
the state. In 1782 Jacob Yoder left Redstone on the 
Monongahela with a boat load of flour which he sold 
in New Orleans. With the proceeds he there pur- 
chased furs, which were sold in Havana, where he 
invested in sugar, which in turn was sold in Phila- 
delphia.^^ This pioneer trading expedition was only 
the forerunner of numerous others soon to follow. 

Washington feared that the natural commercial 
interests of the west would lead it to move for a dis- 
memberment of the commonwealth, and he suggested 
as a remedy the construction of works of internal 
improvement connecting the east and the west. In 
1784 he visited the trans-Alleghany country, and per- 
sonally inspected the portages to and the falls in the 
western rivers. On his return he drew a map to show 
where roads and canals could be constructed in a vast 
scheme of internal improvements to connect the east- 
ern and western waters. ^^ A little later he wrote 
Arthur Lee : "There is nothing which binds one coun- 
try to another but interest. Without this cement the 
western inhabitants, who more than probably will be 
composed in a great degree of foreigners, can have 

"■* Winsor, Westward Movement, 326. 

®* Hulbert, Washington and the West, 32. Communication be- 
tween the east and west by means of canals was first suggested 
by Washington in 1753. See Washington and Lee Hist. Papers, 
No. 4, p. 64; Washington, Writings (ed. Ford), X, 402. 



48 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

no predilection for us, and a commercial connection 
is the only tie we can have upon them."*^^ 

The Assemblies of 1783 and 1784 received numer- 
ous petitions on the subject of internal improvements. 
They asked that the Potomac and James be made 
navigable above the fall line and that highways be 
constructed across the Blue Ridge. In 1784 Washing- 
ton visited the Assembly to exert his influence in 
behalf of contemplated internal improvement under- 
takings. Under his influence and as a result of a 
conference with commissioners from Pennsylvania 
and Maryland the Potomac Company was incorpo- 
rated for the purpose of improving the navigation of 
the Potomac and its tributaries.^^ In the same 
year, 1784, the James River Company was incorpo- 
rated, and James Rumsey was promised an adequate 
compensation for any invention which would enable 
boats to move against the current.^"^ 

From a sectional standpoint the commercial inter- 
ests were at this time more important than internal 
improvements. The towns of the Tidewater chafed 
under the British restrictions upon trade and desired 
better commercial relations between the states. Of the 
numerous petitions to the Assembly on these subjects 
that from Norfolk was, perhaps, the most significant. 
It claimed that the restrictions on the West India trade 
and the foreign commercial monopolies were produ- 

''^ Washington, Writings (ed. Ford), X, 488. 

^'Hening, Statutes, XI, 510. Washington was the first presi- 
dent of the Potomac Company. 

^'^ Ibid., XI, 502; Journal, House of Del., ist sess., 1784, 84. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 49 

cing injury to Virginia and asked for restriction on 
British trade and better commercial relations between 
the states. ^^ Petitions of a similar tone came from 
Fredericksburg, Falmouth, Alexandria, and Port 
Royal.^^ In 1785 Madison made a speech in the 
House of Delegates in favor of these petitions and 
secured the adoption of a resolution which declared 
tliat ''the relative situations of the United States have 
been found, on trial, to require uniformity in their 
commercial relations. "^*^ The representatives of Vir- 
ginia in the Continental Congress were instructed to 
use their influence to bring about better commercial 
relations between the states."^ ^ James Monroe thought 
that Virginia's trade had never been more monopolized 
by Great Britain, and Washington and Henry believed 
that a strong government was alone adequate to 
remedy the situation.'^ - 

Simultaneously with the awakening of an interest 
in better commercial relations on the part of the east 
the subject of the free navigation of the Mississippi 
became an important issue in the west. As the Jay- 
Gardoqui negotiations became more serious the latter 
section developed a keener interest in national politics. 
Under the direction of Henry and at the earnest solici- 
tation of the west the Assembly of 1784 resolved: 
''That it is essential to the prosperity and happiness of 

^^ Journal, House of Del., 2d sess., 1785, 22. 

""Ibid., 24, 35. 

""Ibid., 36. 

'^ Ibid. 

^^ Rives, Madison, I, 548; Tyler, Henry, 273. 



5© SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the western inhabitants of this Commonwealth to 
enjoy the right to navigate the river Mississippi."^^ 

With issues and interests shaping themselves on 
national questions new party alliances and alignments 
were formed. Although not opposed to the free navi- 
gation of the Mississippi, Madison, as has been seen, 
had already espoused the cause of the commercial 
interests of the Tidewater. Thus, just at the time 
when the first stage of the sectional fight over local 
issues was being brought to a triumph by the 
west, its leader, Madison, espoused the cause of those 
who had been his political opponents. On the other 
hand, Henry, never able to co-operate with either 
Madison or Jefferson, now returned to his first affilia- 
tion and again became the spokesman of the west. As 
the Jay-Gardoqui negotiations continued and the com- 
mercial questions became more acute, political parties 
in Virginia merged with those developing in the 
United States at large. 

The desire for better commercial relations led to 
renewed negotiations with Maryland regarding the 
navigation of the Potomac and the Chesapeake. Ac- 
cordingly commissioners met at Mount Vernon and 
came to agreements of mutual advantage whereby 
Virginia waived her right to collect duties on vessels 
entering the Chesapeake and was given the privilege 
of navigating the Potomac. '^^ Gratified with the out- 
come of this negotiation, Maryland proposed another 
conference to which delegates from Pennsylvania and 

''^Journal, House of Del., 2d sess., 1784, 9. 
" Hening, Statutes, XII, 50. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 51 

Delaware were to be invited. Virginia did more. In 
January, 1786, she appointed commissioners to meet 
such other commissioners as might be named by all 
the states "to take into consideration the trade of the 
United States .... and to consider how far a uni- 
form system in their commercial regulations might be 
necessary. "^^ In response to this call delegates from 
five states met at Annapolis in September, 1786. They 
took no action upon the object of the call but sum- 
moned a convention of delegates from all the states to 
meet at Philadelphia, in the following May, to take 
such steps "as shall appear to them necessary to render 
the constitution of the federal government adequate 
to the exigencies of the Union. "''^^ 

Only one month before the meeting at Annapolis 
Jay made the final report of his negotiations with 
Gardoqui to the Continental Congress. In return for 
a favorable commercial treaty with Spain he recom- 
mended to that body that the United States forego for 
a period of twenty-five or thirty years the free naviga- 
tion of the lower Mississippi.'^'^ The desire of the 
seven northern states to act upon Jay's recommenda- 
tions aroused interior and frontier Virginia."^^ Henry 
now insisted that the manifestation of sectionalism 
between the North and the South made a stronger 
union impracticable.'^^ 

^^tlliot, Debates, I, 92. '^ Ibid., I, 92. 

" Secret Journals of Congress, IV, 44-63. 
■^^ Rowland, Mason, II, 195. 

™ Rives, Madison, II, 238, 239 ; Tyler, Henry, 273 ; Bancroft, 
Hist, of the Constitution, II, 397. 



52 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Nevertheless the change of sentiment on the part 
of many in the Tidewater and northwestern counties 
prevailed, and Virginia named delegates to the federal 
convention. Those named were George Washington, 
James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Ed- 
mund Randolph, George Wythe, and James Blair, all 
residents of the Tidewater except Henry and Madison. 
Henry refused, however, to attend the convention or 
to take any part in an effort to strengthen a govern- 
ment fraught with danger to the South.^^ 

When the convention met, Virginia was repre- 
sented by seven delegates. Before entering into its 
deliberations they drew up a set of resolutions embody- 
ing a plan of government. These resolutions were 
later called the ''Virginia Plan" and became the 
foundation of the Constitution. This plan contem- 
plated a government of three separate and distinct 
departments. The legislative department was to 
exercise only those powers for which the several 
state legislatures had proved themselves incompetent 
and in the exercise of which state action would not 
promote national interests. To make the executive 
and judiciary departments equal with and independ- 
ent of a legislative department thus constituted was, 
in the minds of the authors of the plan, to create 
a stronger national government. That feature of 
the Virginia Plan of most importance as concerns 
the theme of interest in this monograph, however, 
was its contemplated division of the sovereign power 
between the states and the federal government. All 

*"' Rives, Madison, II, 238. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 53 

powers not expressly delegated to Congress were to 
be reserved to the states. This arrangement contem- 
plated that hardly imaginable thing, a government 
under which citizens were to be responsible to two 
sovereigns. The Virginians adhered to the principles 
of this plan throughout and insisted that none of the 
modifications later made in it vitiated its fundamental 
ideas. 

Though dictated primarily by her representatives, 
the Constitution met strong opposition in Virginia. 
The democratic leaders of the interior declared that 
it sacrificed the state's sovereignty. Accordingly they 
made a desperate fight to secure the election of dele- 
gates pledged to vote against ratification. When the 
canvass was ended it was not known which side would 
be successful, so evenly were the friends and enemies 
of the new plan of federal government matched. 
From the Tidewater came a strong delegation favor- 
able to ratification. It numbered among its members 
the most prominent characters at the Virginia bar, 
former sympathizers with Great Britain, and repre- 
sentatives of interests essentially commercial. The 
other delegates favorable to ratification came from 
the Valley and the northwestern part of the state. 
Most of them had seen service in the revolutionary 
armies and were largely under the influence of Wash- 
ington. The Kentucky country and the Piedmont sent 
delegates opposed to ratification. The former were 
chiefly interested in the free navigation of the Missis- 
sippi River and were opposed to strengthening a 
government which might barter their commercial 



54 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

interests for like interests elsewhere. Recent events 
had taught them to look to Henry as their leader. The 
delegates from the Piedmont were persons who had 
seen much service in the Assembly; they were the old 
democratic file which had for years engaged the con- 
servatives of the Tidewater.^^ 

So keen was interest that a full delegation reported 
on the day set for the meeting.^^ The leaders of those 
opposed to ratification, commonly called Anti-federal- 
ists, were Henry, Grayson, and Mason; those in favor 
of ratification were led by Madison, Randolph, Pendle- 
ton, Carrington, and Wythe, who, except the first 
named, were all from the Tidewater. The talks and 
friendly letters of Washington, who was not a member 
of the convention, did much to keep those favorably 
disposed to ratification in line. All realized that the 
final result would be determined only by an intellectual 
battle. The prize to be fought for was the doubtful 
vote from some of the northern and western counties. 
During the course of the debate which followed each 
side accused the other of "scuffling"^^ for the western 
vote. The contest was really between the Tidewater 
and the Piedmont, and was in no small degree a con- 
tinuation of the fight between conservatism and democ- 
racy. 

The debates in the convention reveal the fact that 

»^See Va. Hist. Coll., IX, 63 ff. ; Elliot, Debates, V, 368; 
Madison, Papers, II, 1208; Henry, Henry, II, 340. 

^ For a complete list of delegates by counties, see Rich- 
mond Enquirer, September 2, 1825. 

"Elliot, Debates, III, 251, 361. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 55 

the chief participants were representatives of geo- 
graphical sections of the state, speaking for the in- 
terests and sentiments of their respective sections. 
Governor Randolph thought the Kentuckians had no 
better reason to hope for the free navigation of the 
Mississippi out of a stronger union than in it. Defeat 
of the movement for a stronger union, he believed, 
would be followed by boundary disputes and intermi- 
nable wars, which would fall very heavily upon the 
inhabitants of the Potomac and the northwest. The 
Northern Neck might unite in a northern confederacy, 
which would aid the savages in making war upon what 
remained of Virginia.^^ John Marshall was certain 
that a strong government afforded a better agency for 
securing the free navigation of the Mississippi than a 
weak one.^^ In case the Constitution was rejected, 
Nicholas feared internal wars and dismemberment. 
He told the western delegates that they could expect 
no comfort from their enemies, England and Spain. 
He believed that the only way to bring about the 
evacuation of the Northwest by the British, and the 
consequent cessation of Indian hostilities, was by the 
creation of a government adequate to the task of treat- 
ing with foreign nations. He encouraged the west- 
erners to believe that the increased migrations of New 
Englanders to the Ohio Valley made the surrender of 
the Mississippi navigation improbable. ^^ Those rep- 
resenting the commercial interests predicted war 

^Ibid., Ill, 72, 74, 75. 
^^ Ibid., 222, 22$. 
^Ibid., 238 ff. 



56 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

between France and England. They thought the 
United States should prepare for the event and then 
reap a harvest by becoming the neutral carrier of the 
commerce of the world. ^"^ Kentucky was promised 
separate statehood and encouraged to believe that she 
could thus protect her rights by preserving the balance 
of power between the North and the South.^^ 

The Anti-federalists made sensational arguments 
designed to appeal to those interested in the free navi- 
gation of the Mississippi. Henry declared "there are 
no tyrants in America" and "northern Virginia has 
nothing to fear" because of invasion by sister republics. 
He did not believe the Northern Neck would secede 
from Virginia and insisted that, in case of the dismem- 
berment of the Union, Pennsylvania would join a con- 
federacy with Virginia and, if necessary, fight with 
her. He warned the delegates from the northwest 
that they would "sip sorrow .... if you want any 
other security than the law of Virginia."^^ Mason like- 
wise appealed to sectional interests. He professed to 
see in the contemplated supreme court an instrument 
whereby the Fairfax heirs, the representatives of the 
Vandalia and Indiana companies, and individual claim- 
ants to lands in the trans-Alleghany could recover 
their fonner possessions.^*^ Grayson made the ablest 

^Elliot, Debates, loi, 238. 

^ Ibid., Ill, 259, 511. During the Jay-Gardoqui negotiations 
many eastern Virginians became favorable to separate statehood 
for Kentucky. Madison thought it wise to let Kentucky become a 
separate state by regular and legal methods. It would, he believed, 
set a safe precedent (Writings [ed. Cong.], I, 157). 

«» Elliot, Debates, III, 141, 154. ^ Ibid., Ill, 270, 527. 



REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 57 

argument produced by the Anti-federalists. He spoke 
directly for the agricultural and democratic interest 
of central Virginia. The North, he believed, contem- 
plated the sacrifice of the free use of the Mississippi. 
It hoped thereby to increase the importance of com- 
merce and manufacturing by retaining its population. 
This policy, he contended, was opposed to the true 
interests of the United States, whose real interest lay 
in agriculture. Men could not be forced to the shop 
and the sea, he argued, so long as they could get cheap 
and fertile lands. He therefore condemned the idea 
of making the United States the neutral carrier of the 
commerce of the world, as impracticable and hazard- 
ous.^^ 

Grigsby, in his study of the convention of 1788, 
brings out some interesting facts and conditions which 
determined the vote of the Valley and the counties of 
the northwest on this occasion. "Experience in civil 
and military office" and ''an intimate acquaintance with 
the wants and interests of the West" moved John 
Stuart, of Greenbrier County, a pioneer surveyor and 
soldier, to favor a stronger government. He feared 
that a coalition of the Indians with the foreigners 
might result in the "total extermination of settlement 
west of the Blue Ridge. "^^ William Fleming "knew 
that so long as Spain held Louisiana and Great Britain 
held the Canadas Indian troubles would be frequent 
and that all the resources of all the states would be 
necessary to repel the Indians in the pay of foreign 

^^Ibid., 288-92. 

>«= Va. Hist. Coll.. X, 27. 



58 SECTIONALISM IX VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

powers. ''^^ Gabriel Jones, the ablest lawyer of his day 
west of the Blue Ridge, ''had no fear of a strong 
government which was at the same time a republican 
government. "^^ Expressions of similar sentiments are 
attributed to Andrew Moore, Ebenezar Zane, George 
Jackson, Isaac Van Meter, Archibald Stuart, and 
Thomas Lewis, delegates to the convention from the 
Valley and the northwest. 

The masterful argument of Madison was the de- 
termining factor in favor of ratification. It was not 
sensational, nor did it appeal to sectional prejudices. 
Before the debate was ended the Anti-federalists 
became convinced that they had lost. Accordingly 
they tried to prevent immediate ratification by pro- 
posing amendments, which they insisted should be 
accepted by the other states as the only condition upon 
which Virginia would ratify the Constitution. Friends 
of the Constitution did not oppose amendments, but 
insisted that they should be made subsequently to rati- 
fication. The w^hole issue was accordingly reduced to 
the question of whether or not amendments should 
be made before ratification. The possibility of Vir- 
ginia's being deprived of a share in putting the new 
government into operation made this position of the 
Anti-federalists untenable. 

The vote on ratification was : ayes 89, nays 79.^^ 
The accompanying map shows practically all the lower 
Tidewater in favor of ratification. Only two delegates 
from the Shenandoah Valley and that part of the 

■^Fa. Hist. Coll., 40. "^Ibid., 18. 

** Elliot, Debates, III, 653-55. 









□ 1 1 « 



r.^^J^' 



5^ 




REVOLUTION AND CONFEDERATION 59 

trans-Alleghany north of the Great Kanawha voted 
nay. The democratic Piedmont and the Kentucky 
country were almost unanimous in opposition to the 
Constitution. 

Two days after the vote on ratification George 
Wythe reported, as proposed alterations and additions 
to the federal Constitution, twenty separate amend- 
ments and a Bill of Rights. Except the amendment 
designed to restrict Congress to the use of requisitions 
in the collection of direct taxes, the report was accepted 
without division. The democratic element of the 
convention regarded the power to levy a direct tax 
as the most dangerous intrusted to the new govern- 
ment. George Mason insisted that this one power 
made the federal government supreme.^^ A motion 
to strike out the amendment requiring the use of 
requisitions was lost, ayes 65, nays 85. An analysis 
of this vote shows the Valley and the northwest in 
favor of striking out this amendment. Only three of 
the delegates from these two sections who voted for 
ratification were in favor of the proposed amendment. 
The additions to the ranks of the Anti-federalists 
came chiefly from the Tidewater. 

Ratification did not put an end to the Anti-federal- 
ist opposition to the Constitution. During the summer 
of 1789 Clinton's circular letter proposing a second 
constitutional convention was the theme of conversa- 
tion in Virginia. The Assembly of 1789-90 had been 
elected when the excitement over ratification was at its 
height and contained a large majority of Anti-federal- 

"^Jbid., Ill, 32. 



6o SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ists. Under the leadership of Henry it made a favor- 
able reply to Clinton's letter and sent an address to the 
states and a memorial to Congress in support of a 
second convention. It also attempted to control the 
delegation from Virginia in the first Congress. By 
a sectional vote Madison was defeated for election to 
the Senate, and the state was districted so as to make 
the election of Federalists to the House of Repre- 
sentatives doubtful.'^" The elections of 1789 marked 
the passing of the Anti-federalist party in Virginia. 
Contrary to the expectations of many political leaders 
it secured only three presidential electors and three 
members of the House of Representatives ; and Henry 
was forced into retirement.^^ 

' ^^ Rives, Madison, II, 652; Henry, Henry, II, 426; Rowland, 
Mason, II, 303 ; Madison, Letters, I, 443, 444, 

** In each case the Piedmont elected two Anti-federalists and 
the Tidewater one (Madison, Writings, I, 458; Rives, Madison, II, 
657; Henr>% Henry, II, 441). 



CHAPTER III 

FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS, 1790-1816 

Hamilton's plans of large powers for the new 
government and, in particular, his schemes for a 
national bank, direct taxes, heavy duties, and the 
assumption of the state debts were strongly opposed 
in Virginia on the ground not only of expediency but 
also of principle. It was there believed that his policy 
involved the creation of a stronger national govern- 
ment than that contemplated by the constitution 
makers of 1787. Even Madison, staunch Federalist 
as he was, believed that the framers of 1787 had 
created a government of delegated powers and limited 
jurisdiction. Besides, Virginia had paid a large por- 
tion of her revolutionary debt and was consequently 
averse to assuming the debts of those states which had 
been less prompt in meeting their obligations. 

Opposition to the Hamilton programme did not, 
however, as some have supposed, create political unity 
in Virginia. Many friends of the Constitution in 
1788 now favored a liberal construction of that docu- 
ment. These preferences were clearly manifested by 
the large minority vote in the Assembly of 1790 in 
favor of a resolution approving assumption.^ Repre- 
sentatives in Congress from the Tidewater and 

^ The vote was : ayes 47, noes 88. The affirmative vote came 
abnost wholly from those areas which had favored ratification of 
the federal Constitution. See Journal, House of Del., 1790, 35, 36. 

61 



62 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177^1861 

northern Virginia also favored parts of Hamilton's 
plan. Bland, who died before the final vote was taken, 
Lee, and White were for the assumption of the state 
debts. The attitude of both Bland and Lee was 
determined by local conditions and devotion to the 
principles of a strong government and not primarily 
by a desire to have the federal capital located on 
the Potomac or by political influence, which it has 
been alleged was brought to bear upon them. Before 
the understanding between Jefferson and Hamilton, 
whereby the former agreed to deliver enough votes 
to carry assumption provided the latter would use his 
influence to fix the temporary seat of government at 
Philadelphia and the permanent seat on the Potomac, 
both Bland and Lee were known to favor assumption.- 
They both represented districts exhausted by excessive 
and unscientific cropping, whence large migrations 
had been made to the West and to the South. They 
therefore favored assumption, as did others in the 
Tidewater and along the Potomac, as the only means 
whereby the newer sections of the Union could be 
made to pay an equitable share of the revolutionary 
debt.3 

As the opposition to Hamilton's programme became 
more pronounced Jefferson and Madison conceived the 
idea of forming a strong party to resist the influence 
of its nationalistic tendencies. Fresh from the pre- 

^ Jefferson, Anas, 34; Hunt, Madison, 184; Maclay, Journal, 
328; Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), I, 162, 163; V, 184; VI, 172; 
Annals of Congress, i Cong., II, 171 2. 

^ Ibid., I Cong., II, 1482, 1661. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 63 

liminaries of the French Revolution and imbued with 
the current individualistic philosophy, Jefferson was 
eminently qualified to become the leader of such an 
opposition party. Because of the predilection of some 
of its leaders for things French the new party was 
called ''Republican," while the administration party 
continued to be called "Federalist." 

In spite of the opposition of the Virginia leaders, 
the elections of 1793 showed unexpected Federalist 
strength. The party secured a large minority in the 
Assembly, and those sections which had favored the 
ratification of the federal Constitution again elected 
Federalists to Congress.* 

As the next few years brought vexing questions on 
foreign relations, the excise, and the Jay Treaty, the 
Federalists lost strength locally. The westerners hoped 
to use French aid in checking English and Spanish 
intrigues and in reducing the dangers from Indian 
attacks; they particularly disliked the excise and went 
so far in their opposition as to raise liberty poles and 
to threaten armed resistance to the encroachments of 
the federal government.^ The Jay Treaty was far 
from remedying the rift. From the delay in sur- 
rendering the western posts the frontier inhabitants 
feared a continuation of Indian attacks. In the Tide- 
water, although there was less love for the French, 

* The Tidewater chose Parker, formerly elected as an Anti- 
federalist, Lee, Page, and Griffin, and the transmontane country 
elected Neville, Rutherford, and Hancock (Madison, Writings [ed. 
Cong.], 255, 577; Loudoun's Register, April 4, 1793). 

^Baltimore Daily Intelligencer, September 16, 1794; Calendar 
Va, State Papers, VII, 297, 323 ; V, 481. 



64 SECTIONALIbM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the Jay Treaty was even more unwelcome than in the 
west, because it recognized the right of the British to 
collect debts due when the Revolution began and 
afforded the planters no recourse for recovering the 
value of negro slaves, which they alleged had been 
stolen by the British during the war.^ 

Other forces were at work, however, to neutralize 
temporarily the Republican influences. Genet's attack 
upon Washington and his pernicious meddling aroused 
resentment everywhere and especially with the planters 
of the Tidewater among whom Washington was even 
more popular than elsewhere^ The inhabitants of the 
Tidewater also had an eye upon the negro slave up- 
rising in San Domingo and were fearful lest French 
influences might produce a similar upheaval in Vir- 
ginia. Meanwhile the inhabitants of the west 
sympathized heartily with the efforts of the federal 
administration to defeat the Indians of the Northwest 
Territory. They valued protection more highly than 
the privilege to distil and sell whisky without paying 
a tax. The fact that the Federalists favored the Indian 
wars while the leaders of the Republican party opposed 
them kept many westerners loyal to the former party. 
They accordingly volunteered aid to put down the 

^Annals of Cong., 4 Cong., i sess., 1030; Jefferson, Anas, 
78-80 ; Randall, Jefferson, II, 295 ; Henry, Henry, II, 529. 

' Henry took advantage of this his first opportunity, under 
these changed conditions, to break with Jefferson and Madison. 
See Tyler, Henry, 358; Washington, Writings (ed. Ford), X, 562; 
ibid., XI, 81, 82. During the most acute stage of the Genet affair 
both Jefferson and Madison trembled for the future of their party 
(Jeiferson, Writings [ed. Ford], 338, 361). 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 65 

Whiskey Insurrection and otherwise expressed devo- 
tion to nationahsm.^ 

Thus while many former FederaHsts found abun- 
dant reasons for affiHating with the new party, others 
were equally attracted to nationalism. The congres- 
sional election of 1795 shows, however, a loss of 
Federalist strength in Virginia. Their representation 
in Congress fell from seven to four members.^ For 
the first time an opposition member was successful in 
securing an election in the trans-Alleghany. George 
Jackson, who had been a candidate on the anti-excise 
ticket in 1793 and who was then defeated by six votes, 
was now successful in contesting the re-election of 
Neville.^^ The cessation of Indian hostilities and the 
influence of Gallatin made Republican success in the 
trans-Alleghany possible. 

The quarrel with France, which now ensued, 
caused little immediate change in the party alignments. 
The Assembly of 1797 was, like its predecessor, in full 
control of the Republicans, and the congressional elec- 
tion of 1797 again returned four Federalists.^^ This 
lack of change in party strength does not, how- 
ever, mean that Virginians were indifferent to the 
political issues of the day. Giles, for example, was 
strenuously opposed to war with France, while the 

^Baltimore Daily Intelligencer, September 5, 13, 1794 5 Adams, 
Gallatin, 13; Calendar Va. State Papers, VII, 119, 266. 

"The Federalists elected in 1795 were: from the Tidewater, 
Page and Parker ; from the Valley, Hancock and Rutherford. 

^"^ Calendar Va. State Papers, VII, 289. 

^^The Federalists were: from the Tidewater, Evans and 
Parker; from the Valley, Daniel Morgan and James Machir. 



66 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

local Federalists were pronouncedly belligerent. The 
Republicans, under the leadership of Giles, claimed 
that war was desired to perpetuate federalism, while 
the members of the administration party claimed that 
it was necessary to maintain the national honor.^^ 

When it became evident that war with France was 
inevitable and that it was no longer the part of patriots 
to oppose the policy of the administration, members of 
the opposition party from Virginia ceased to vote on 
measures affecting our foreign relations. Some of 
them left the capitol. In April, 1798 (Congress 
adjourned in July), Jefferson wrote Madison: "Giles, 
Clopton, Cabell, and Nicholas have gone. Clay goes 
tomorrow. Parker has completely gone over to the 
war party. "^^ 

By 1798 war with France had actually begun; 
Hamilton was in control of the army and planned a 
coup on the lower Mississippi to incite popular enthusi- 
asm for the government ; the Federalists had a major- 
ity in both houses of Congress; and with the newly 
organized caucus and the confidence of the executive 
Pickering was in practical control of the government ; 
the alien and sedition laws were being enforced to the 
discomfiture of Republican politicians; and the con- 

^^ In the subsequent sessions the Virginia Federalists voted for 
the bills to provide means of defense, a stronger navy, the creation 
of the Navy Department, the suspension of commercial intercourse 
with France, and the increase of the provisional army. Of the four, 
Evans alone voted for the alien and sedition acts ; Parker opposed 
them, and Morgan and Machir were not present when the votes 
were taken (Annals of Cong., 5 Cong., I, 297; II, 1521, 1553, 1772, 
1865, 2028, 2171). 

" Randall, Jefferson, II, 387. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 67 

gressional elections of 1798 had resulted in Federalist 
victories everywhere. It seemed that the days of the 
Republicans were numbered. 

The opposition in Virginia was too strong, how- 
ever, to let things go by default ; already John Taylor, 
of Caroline, had talked dismemberment;^^ and numer- 
ous mass-meetings, held during the summer of 1798 
in the Piedmont and in the interior counties of the 
Tidewater, protested against the Federalist pro- 
gramme; the alien and sedition laws were special 
objects of attack, and Congress and the Assembly were 
petitioned to bring about their repeal.^^ Confronted 
by these conditions and supported by an enthusiastic 
constituency Jefferson and Madison conceived the idea 
of having one or more state governments protest 
against the nationalistic tendency of the federal gov- 
ernment. Citizens of Kentucky had already spoken in 
numerous petitions, memorials, and resolutions against 
the constitutionality of the alien and sedition laws and 
the expediency of a war with France, which they 
feared would result in the loss of the free navigation 
of the Mississippi. It was accordingly decided to have 
Virginia and Kentucky speak in the form of resolu- 
tions from their assemblies. 

Kentucky spoke first in a series of resolutions 
which border closely upon nullification. They made 
it the duty of a state to interpose to prevent federal 
usurpations of reserved powers. But in Virginia's case 

"Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), VII, 263. 
" See Anderson, "Va. and Ky. Resolutions," Am. Hist. Rev., 
V, 46. 



68 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177^1861 

it was necessary to use both caution and moderation; 
the election of 1798 had returned a large Federalist 
minority to the Assembly ; and, besides, both Jefferson 
and Madison realized that their political future was 
at stake. Accordingly Jefferson thought it wise to 
reaffirm only the essentials of the Kentucky resolu- 
tions, which he himself had drawn. On this subject 
he wrote to Madison, who was to draft the Virginia 
resolutions, that they should be left *'in such a train 
as that we may not be committed absolutely to push 
the matter to extremes and yet may be free to push as 
far as events will make prudent. "^^ 

The Virginia resolutions reaffirmed the state- 
compact theory of the Constitution and declared that 
in case of a "deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exer- 
cise of power not granted by the said compact, the 
states who are parties thereto have the right and are 
in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress 
of the evil," they condemned the policy of consolidat- 
ing the states by degrees into one sovereignty, and 
declared the alien and sedition laws unconstitutional. 
But they did not say whether the "states" were to act 
through individual state legislatures or by co-operation 
through the medium of state legislatures or a national 
convention. 

Although mild in expression these resolutions met 
the united opposition of a strong sectional minority in 
the state. It was led by George Keith Taylor, of 
Prince George County, a brother-in-law of John 
Marshall, and a thorough representative of the family 

"Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), VII, 288. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 69 

and economic interests of the Tidewater aristocracy. 
He insisted that the resolutions invited the people of 
the state to arms against the federal government ;^'^ 
no other inference could be drawn, said he, from reso- 
lutions which make it ''the duty" of citizens to resist 
the execution of alleged unconstitutional laws. He 
argued that the states were not the only parties, or the 
chief parties, to the federal compact ; that the Articles 
of Confederation were the only real compact which 
had ever existed between the states, and that the effort 
to annul them had resulted in their destruction and in 
the creation of a government by the people.^ ^ Parts 
of the preamble and the fact that the people had rati- 
fied the federal Constitution in state conventions made 
it plain to Taylor that this is a government by the 
people. He denied that the alien and sedition acts were 
unconstitutional and insisted that they were within the 
prerogatives of a sovereign power. Speaking more 
directly for his section, the Tidewater, he ridiculed the 
principles of the French Revolution and protested 
against the further extension of republicanism in the 
slave-holding districts of Virginia. In this connection 
he pointed to the uprisings and bloodshed in San 
Domingo as the things which Virginia might hope to 
escape by casting off French influences.^ ^ 

The opinions of the west found best expression in 
the speech of Brooke of Frederick County. He in- 
dorsed Taylor's theories, explaining the origin and 
nature of the federal government, and took advantage 

"Debates and Proceedings on the Res. of 1798 (ed. 1835), 81. 
^^Ibid., 176. ^' Ibid., 109. 



70 SECTIONALISM IX VIRGINL\, 1776-1861 

of the (xcasion to renew the demands of his section 
for a rr.Z'Tt democratic state government. He could 
not see the consistena»- of gentlemen who argued for 
donocratic principles and voted to deprive themselves 
of a democratic state government As between the 
government of the United States and that of Virginia, 
he had always favored the former, because it was 
more democratic. It gave every thirt}* thousand of 
its citizens a representative in Congress, while the 
state government, by its system of imequal representa- 
tion, denied a large number an adequate voice in the 
Assembly. Rather than vote for the proposed resolu- 
tions he would seek an "asylum in some other region 
of the globe among a race of men who have more 
respect for peace and order, and who set a higher value 
upon the blessings of good govemment."^^ He closed 
his argument by proposing that the Assembly petition 
Omgress for the repeal of the alien and sedition acts.^^ 
John Taylor, of Caroline County, introduced the 
resolutions and led in the argtmient for their adoption. 
He professed to speak only for the principles of the 
federal Constitution and for public opinion. In declar- 
ing her own position and by asking the sister states to 
ccM>perate with her, he believed that Virginia was 
pursuing the only possible and ordinary* procedure to 
arrest federal usurpation. Those favorable to adop- 
tion argued that "the people and the states" were 
parties to the federal compact. ^^ Thus it was not only 
constitutional but necessary and right for states to 

* Debates and Proceedings on the Res. of 7795 ('ed 1835), 
i3>-33. 

^Ibid., 133. "Ibid., 106, 165. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 71 

arrest infractions of that compact. They insisted that 
the powers of the federal government were not general 
but that they were specifically enumerated. Usurpa- 
tion of other powers were simply steps toward mon- 
archy. Vattel and Blackstone were frequently invoked 
to show that aliens have rights which should be 
acknowledged and preserved. ^^ Their opponents were 
frequently accused of magnifying the influence of 
French republicanism in San Domingo and the prob- 
able effect of its extension into the slave-holding 
districts of Virginia.^^ 

The minority directed its chief attacks upon that 
resolution which condemned the nationalistic tenden- 
cies of the federal government. A motion to strike 
it out was, however, lost.^^ 

The final vote on the adoption of the resolutions 
was: ayes 100, noes 63.^^ As the map shows, this 
vote was sectional. The Tidewater and both the 
northern and southern extremities of the Piedmont 
were almost evenly divided, while the Valley was prac- 
tically a unit in the minority. The influence of John 
G. Jackson, a brother-in-law of Madison and a son of 
George Jackson, leader of the anti-excise party, and 
John Dawson,^^ a graduate of Yale and a close political 

^ I bid. J J 26, 140. 

^ Ibid., 92, 109, 118. 

^The vote was: ayes 68, noes 96 (ibid., 211, 212). 

^ Ibid., 212, 

" Dawson represented the trans- Alleghany in the fifth Con- 
gress. By the time of the election for the sixth Congress he had 
found such favor with the eastern leaders that he was elected to 
represent a district east of the Blue Ridge and continued to re- 
ceive elections for several years. 



72 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776^1861 

friend to both Madison and Jefferson, reduced the 
FederaHst strength in the trans-Alleghany section. 

In the west the discussion of 1798 brought out 
frequent expressions of devotion to the principles of 
a strong national government. A citizen of Rock- 
bridge County wrote to his friend in Kentucky : 

The attention of the people here is principally turned to 
politics. The people on this side of the Blue Ridge are gener- 
ally strongly in favor of the measures of the general govern- 
ment and determined to oppose the French and French parti- 
sans to the utmost. Most of the counties on the other side of 
the mountains [trans-Alleghany] are of the same mind but 
some are divided. 

We have a federal pole hoisted in Brownsburg, seventy 
feet high, with the colors of the United States flying on top 
and inscribed Independence or Death.^ 

Another citizen of the same section wTote of the 
Jefferson party: ''Infidels hate religion, legal coercion, 
and all those old fashioned things."-'^ Without delib- 
eration the county court of Greenbrier County tore into 
pieces and trampled under foot an official copy of 
Madison's Report and the Resolutions of 1799. The 
acts of the Assembly establishing an armory at Rich- 
mond and requiring presidential electors to be elected 
upon a general ticket instead of by districts as formerly 
also met opposition in the Federalist strongholds. 
Leven Powell^^ feared that an act would be passed re- 

^ The Palladium (Frankfort, Ky.), October 23, 1798. 

^ Ihid., January 8, 1799. 

^ See Acts of 1798-99. Leven Powell of the Loudoun-Fairfax 
district had voted against Jefferson for the presidency in 1796 
(Randall, Jefferson, II, 315 ; The Palladium, February 6, 1800). 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 73 

quiring representatives in Congress to be elected in the 
same manner.^^ 

The following extract from a letter of General 
Daniel Morgan, then in Congress, to General Benjamin 
Biggs furnishes a clue to the attitude of the Revolu- 
tionary soldier of the West toward the proceedings of 
the Virginia assemblies of 1798 and 1799: 

Our political situation [said he] appears to have arrived at 
that crisis where every friend of his country should declare 
himself, and both by word and deed take a decided part in 
favor of a government under which we might live free, happy, 
and respectable were it not for the intrigues of designing men 
and the factions of party. 

You have doubtless seen the resolutions from Kentucky and 
the Address from the Virginia Legislature— My God! Who 
could have thought? that the Legislature of a State which 
ought to be the most respectable in the Union instead of de- 
voting their exertions to the mere regulation of their State 
and the happiness of their constituents, were employed in fabri- 
cating division in our country and in influencing the people 
against our government founded by them or their constituents, 
and which for its justice and moderation is the Envy and 
Wonder of the surrounding Worlde. It is difficult to conceive 
what these people would be at, but I verily believe should their 
designs succeed, it will give a vital Stab to our political Happi- 
ness. Instead of an extensive, united nation, respectable among 
all the people on the Globe, we shall dwindle into a number of 
petty divisions, an easy prey for domestic Demagogues and 
foreign Enemies, having besides a moral certainty of external 
divisions and internal broils. 

Under the circumstances, my Dear Sir, it is indispensably 

^V. P. Branch Papers, No. II, 234. The Federalists also re- 
sented the act whereby the public printing was given to a Repub- 
lican. 



74 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

necessary for every friend of his country to exert himself at 
the ensuing and future elections, as well for Congress as the 
State Legislature, to put in men of principle and integrity, men 
unbiased by any foreign interest, who are good federalists and 
will consult only the Honor, the advantage and Dignity of 
the United States government. You may rely on it Sir, it is 
time to know each other ; faction shall raise its head and with- 
out firmness and decision that beautiful structure the Federal 
Government is no more ! Leading men in our state talk openly 
of dividing the Government ! In the name of Heaven ! are 
their Views honest? I think not — a part can not contain more 
Wisdom and Virtue than the whole. Does it not appear that 
these people disappointed at not being elevated in the civil 
Government, wish to cut it to pieces, in order that they may 
rule and tyranize over a part. 

I wish you to mention my sentiments to all my old friends 
in your Quarters, Colonel Zane, Strecker, McGuire H. — Tell 
them they are the sentiments of an old acquaintance who has 
interest but in common with his fellow citizens who is just re- 
turning to domestic life with a sincere wish to spend the re- 
mainder of his days in retirement from public life. 

As to Mr. Machir and Haymond I shall be happy if either 
is elected, being both friends of the country; Mr. Machir will 
have a powerful interest on the east of the mountains. I hope 
you will not step between the two and suffer an enemy to our 
country to succeed. When I speak of two good men I wish 
to give no preference, but in justice to Mr. Machir's services 
heretofore I must say that for Talents, Gentlemanlike conduct 
and true federalism he is worthy of respect. 

I am Sir with real Esteem and Attachment — Sir, your 
friend, 

Daniel Morgan** 

^Draper MSS (Biggs Papers), NN., V, p. 116. For practically 
the same statements see Columbian Mirror, April 18, 1799. Daniel 
Morgan resided in the Valley of Virginia ; General Biggs in the 
extreme northwestern part of the state. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 75 

During the winter of 1798-99 national politics 
took a new turn. The peace policy prevailed and, to 
the great surprise of both Pickering and Hamilton, 
Adams nominated William Vans Murry to be minister 
to France. The non^ination was confirmed, and a 
breach in the Federalist party followed. The disrup- 
tion did not, however, strengthen the Republican fol- 
lowing in Virginia. Already John Marshall had 
become the active leader of the Federalists in that 
state. His opposition to the alien and sedition laws 
and support of the peace policy adopted by Adams 
rallied about him the Federahsts of 1788. Washing- 
ton and others of the older school came to his aid. 

Under the leadership of Marshall the Federalists 
determined to campaign for a majority in the Assem- 
bly of 1799 and to repeal the Resolutions of 1798. 
They had reason to be encouraged in this undertaking. 
In many states the congressional elections of 1798 had 
been decidedly anti-Republican and the Virginia Reso- 
lutions of that date had not aroused great enthusiasm 
in their behalf either at home or in the country at 
large. The Federalists put forth their most prominent 
leaders for the Assembly. At the solicitation of Wash- 
ington, Henry became a candidate for election to that 
body. Marshall became a candidate for Congress in 
the Richmond district against a tried Republican, John 
Clopton. The Federalists claimed that the Union 
was in danger and that their success at the polls was 
necessary to preserv^e it. Their position was set forth 
in The Address of the Minority in the Virginia Legis- 
lature to the People of the State concerning a Vindi- 



76 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

cation of the Constitutionality of the Alien and 
Sedition Lazvs, and in an address entitled Plain Truths. 
The latter was written by a resident of Westmoreland 
County; it denied the state-compact theory of the 
Constitution and insisted on the sovereignty of the 
people. 

The Federalist platform is more clearly set forth, 
however, in Marshall's answer to five questions pro- 
pounded to him by "A Freeholder." In substance 
these questions were: (i) Are you attached to the 
sentiments of the Constitution as sanctioned by the 
people? (2) Is the true interest of America dependent 
upon any foreign alliance? (3) Do you advocate any 
other relations with Great Britain than those agreed 
upon in 1794? (4) Is the war with France necessary? 
(5) Are you an advocate of the alien and sedition 
laws? To these inquiries Marshall's reply was that 
he regarded the Constitution, "as sanctioned by the 
people, as the rock of our political salvation, which has 
preserved us from misery, division, and civil war;" 
following the advice of Washington's farewell address, 
he declared himself opposed to all alliances with 
foreigners; he thought the Treaty of 1794 with Great 
Britain should be preserved and that it might even be 
necessary to make temporary arrangements with her 
to secure aid against France; he was opposed to the 
alien and sedition laws, because, said he, "they are use- 
less and calculated to create unnecessary discontent 
and jealousies."^^ 

^^ The Spectator, October 13, 1798. This letter was written 
when it was known that Marshall would be a candidate for Con- 
gress in 1799. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 77 

The Republican platform consisted of the Resolu- 
tions of 1798. Contrary to the generally accepted 
opinion, the leaders of this party were not contending 
mainly for principles; they desired practical results. 
They disavowed all thought of dismemberment and 
made persistent efforts to break down the Federalist 
strongholds. For this purpose political pamphlets 
were freely distributed in the Valley, and Republican 
leaders there were promised liberal rewards. The 
most prominent leaders in the party offered themselves 
for election to Congress or to the Assembly ; Madison 
became a candidate for election to the latter. So keen 
was public excitement in Richmond that the final poll 
was accompanied by riots. ^^ 

The results of the election were a surprise to both 
parties. The transmontane country elected fewer 
Federalists to the Assembly than at previous elections 
and but one member of that party to Congress. On 
the other hand, the Federalists gained a marked victory 
in the Tidewater, where they increased their repre- 
sentation in the Assembly and secured the election of 
four representatives in Congress. ^^ Nicholas, a Re- 
publican, was elected by a district in the Tidewater by 
a bare majority. 

Contemporary comments upon the election of i799 
show the surprise which the results created among 
party leaders and the sectional character of the contest. 

"* Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 425. 

^ The successful Federalists were Parker, Marshall, Lee, and 
Evans. Powell of the Loudoun-Fairfax district was also elected as 
a Federalist. 



78 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Jefferson wrote : "The Valley between the Blue Ridge 
and the North mountain, which has for some time 
been much tainted and which has given me more 
serious uneasiness than any other part of the State, 
has come solidly around.""^ The Federalist victories 
in the Tidewater were attributed to the heavy vote 
cast by the merchants and ''Tories." Of the election 
of Lee and the close run given Nicholas, Jefferson said : 
'Tt marks a taint in that part of the State which I have 
not expected." He insisted, however, that the Fed- 
eralist successes were due to "an accidental combina- 
tion of circumstances" and that they were only 
temporary. ^^ 

When the Assembly of 1 799-1 800 met, Madison's 
Report, made in answer to the sister states opposed to 
the Resolutions of 1798, was received and adopted. 
The Republicans accepted this report and the resolu- 
tions which later accompanied it as a vindication of 
the Resolutions of 1798 and as a conclusive answer to 
all arguments raised against them. The Report was 
not adopted, however, without strenuous opposition. 
The vote was: ayes 100, noes 63.^'^ An analysis of 
this vote shows a Federalist loss of strength over the 
preceding year in the Valley and a gain in the trans- 
Alleghany and the Tidewater. 

The Federalist showing in the elections of 1799 
made the results of the election in the following year 
uncertain. Accordingly further efforts were made to 

'"'Jefferson, Writitujs (ed. Ford), VII, 380. 

*' Ibid., VII, 380. 

^Debates and Proceedings 17(^8 and 17(^9, 223, 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 79 

break down the sectional strongholds of the minority. 
Jacob Koontz, a Jefferson lieutenant in the Valley, 
"left no stone unturned among his fellow citizens, the 
Germans. "^^ Numerous political pamphlets were dis- 
tributed in an effort to advance the cause of Repub- 
licanism. Thomas Claiborne, of Monongalia County, 
wrote his chief, Governor Monroe, thus discouragingly 
of the prospects in the trans-Alleghany : 

The present temper of the inhabitants of this country, being 
federal, not much is to be expected of them toward republi- 
can works — in some owing to the personal influence of a few 
old residents, grown into the character of federalism by habit 
and premeditation and perhaps not just reasoning, and in others 
from a want of literature and a perusal of instructive publica- 
tions.*" 

The presidential election of 1800 was a landslide 
for the Republicans. Practically complete returns gave 
Jefferson a majority of 13,363 votes in a total of 
20'797- Loudoun and Augusta were the only counties 
which gave majorities to Adams, though several 
counties of the lower Tidewater and die Shenandoah 
Valley gave him large minorities. The vote in the 
eastern towns and cities was also almost evenly 
divided."*^ 

In Congress the Virginia Federalists continued to 
fight the ascendency of Republicanism. They opposed 
the election of Jefferson to the presidency and gave 

^Calendar Va. State Papers, IX, 121, 131. 

*"Ibid., IX, III. 

*^The Palladium (Frankfort, Ky.), December 12, 1800. 



8o SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

five votes to Burr;^^ they voted for the Judiciary Act 
of 1801 and against the reduction of the army;^^ they 
also opposed the repeal of the alien and sedition laws. 
But the congressional election of 1801 was a severe 
rebuke to their course; only one Federalist, John Strat- 
ton, of Accomac County, secured an election from 
Virginia. 

The elections of 1801 were followed by a subsid- 
ence of party strife. The Republicans had undisputed 
control of the Assembly, and Monroe, who did Jeffer- 
son^s bidding, was governor. The congressional 
election of 1803, however, showed a decided reaction 
in favor of Federalism. Jefferson had not yet ac- 
complished his master-stroke, the purchase of Louisi- 
ana; Democracy seemed to be running to excess; and 
rumors of Jefferson's alleged religious skepticism made 
unfavorable impressions on the pious Presbyterians, 
Methodists, and Baptists. Accordingly the old sec- 
tional parties again showed signs of a revival. Four 
Federalists were successful in the congressional contest 
of 1803 : the Tidewater elected Thomas Griffin, the 
Valley Thomas Lewis^^ and James Stephenson, and 
the Loudoun and Fairfax district Joseph Lewis. The 
minority party in the Assembly was reinforced to such 
an extent that it was able to make effective demands 
for administrative reform and successful attacks upon 

*^ National Intelligencer, February 13, 1801 ; Niles Register, 

XXX, 433. 

*^ Annals of Cong., 6 Cong., 2d sess., 836, 915. 

** Andrew Moore successfully contested the election of Thomas 
Lewis. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 8i 

the partisan administration of Monroe.*^ In Congress 
the Virginia Federalists, elected in 1803, opposed the 
Louisiana purchase and voted against the appropria- 
tion to make it effective. ^^ 

The popularity of the Louisiana purchase tempora- 
rily submerged Federalism in Virginia. In the Valley 
the treaty with France was made the occasion for 
numerous mass-meetings and public orations. On 
March 4, 1804, Chapman Johnson addressed the 
citizens of Staunton, the Federalist stronghold of all 
Virginia, on the "Late Treaty with France." Of the 
breakdown in party lines which the Louisiana purchase 
was bringing about he said : 

The clouds which accompanied the tempest [1798] are not 
yet scattered from the horizon; but I see them fast disappear- 
ing under the influence of the new planet. Party animosity is 
forgotten, whilst all denominations of politicians concur in re- 
joicing at our late acquisitions. This is the first distinguished 
occasion on which both parties have rejoiced together.*^ 

The Louisiana purchase, as a harmonizing factor, 
was aided by the prevalence of unusual economic 
prosperity, especially in the Piedmont and the Valley. 
These sections became the great flour-producing areas 
for the demands created by the European wars. Of 
his observations at this time on a trip through Albe- 
marle County Thomas R. Joynes wrote: "On every 
side large verdant wheat fields meet and cheer the 

*^Va. Argus, March 14, 1809. 

^Annals of Congress, 8 Cong., i sess., 442, 546. 

^'^ Oration on the Late Treaty with France, 16. This oration 
may be found in the Library of the Historical Society of Wis- 
consin. 



82 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

traveler. "^^ Hundreds of flour mills sprang up along 
the Piedmont and Valley rivers. ^^ In 1807 two 
thousand coal boats plied annually from Richmond to 
Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore.^^ This is 
also the period when the timber lands of the Piedmont 
and the Tidewater were being exploited. Timber, 
heading, staves, and poles were being shipped to the 
West Indies and to foreign countries in large quanti- 
ties. Hundreds of vessels sailed annually from Nor- 
folk, Bermuda Hundred, and Alexandria with flour, 
wheat, and other products of the interior. The im- 
proved navigation of the James and the Potomac made 
it possible for the planters of the interior to bring their 
products to the shipping centers at the head of tide.*^^ 
These years mark also an important period in the 
industrial development of the trans- Alleghany. The 
treaty of 1795 with Spain encouraged the western 
farmers to plant on a larger scale and gave renewed 
activity to commerce on the Ohio, while the peace of 
Fort Grenville, of the same year, removed the Indians 
as a restraining influence. It was during these years 
that the cattle-raisers of the Valley gave their lands up 
to wheat-raising, to find new pastures in the "Glades" 
of the Alleghany Highlands.^" At the same time the 

*^ William and Mary Coll. Quarterly, X, 148. 

*^ Single counties contained as many as seventy flour mills. 
See U. S. Census of 1810, on "Manufactures." 

^ State Papers, 14 Cong., ist sess., Doc. No. 19 (Gallatin's 
Report). 

"Jefferson, Writings, IV, 464; VII, 292; X, 227; Baltimore 
Daily Advertiser, February 11, 1796. 

'^Richmond Enquirer, February 2, 1820. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS S^ 

small farms on the Monongahela and the upper Ohio 
became the source of supply to the New Orleans 
markets for flour, potatoes, apples, and pork.^^ The 
renown of the flour made on the upper Ohio was so 
great that it commanded one dollar more per barrel 
than that produced in other sections. Cattle-raising 
also became an important industry in the Ohio Valley. 
Thence large numbers of grain-fed cattle were driven 
into the Glades where they were pastured for two or 
three months and then driven on to Baltimore and 
Philadelphia.^* Wool-growing also became an im- 
portant industry in this section, and smelting furnaces 
were erected on the Monongahela and in what is now 
the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia.^^ So im- 
portant did the commerce on the upper Ohio become 
that Charlestown, now Wellesburg, West Virginia, 
was made a port of entry by act of Congress.^^ 

It was, however, the manufacture of salt which 
began to emancipate the west from the east. After 
this industry became important it was no longer neces- 
sary for a pioneer to spend weeks upon the back of a 
pack-horse carrying a bag of salt from the eastern 
markets. Consequently he did not return so frequently 
to the east to renew his political faith at the hearth- 
stone of the fathers and to contribute of his coon skins 

"The Palladium, May 26, 1801. In 1801 $332,343-70 worth of 
farm products passed Louisville in two and one-half months. 

** Cutler, Cutler, 90, 103. 

^'See Acts of Assembly, 1813-14, 55; Am. Daily Advertiser, 
July 10, 1 810; Richmond Enquirer, February 2, 1820, 

"^Annals of Cong., 8 Cong., ist sess., 483, 



84 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

for a part of their luxuries.^"^ In 1797 Elisha Brooks 
set up the first salt furnace on the Great Kanawha.^^ 
In 1807 the Ruffner brothers improved the method 
of manufacture and increased the quantity of the 
Kanawha product. Soon the ''Kanawha SaHnes" 
became known far and near for the excellent quality 
of salt produced. Hundreds of people became depend- 
ent upon the salt-making industry for a livelihood. 
Some built keel-boats and distributed the manufactured 
product along the Ohio and its tributaries; others 
made barrels and found employment in drawing the 
salt brine from the wells and evaporating it. In 18 14 
the Kanawha Salines produced 600,000 bushels 
annually, supplying the western markets at prices of 
seventy-five cents to one dollar per bushel. ^^ 

The industrial development of the trans-Alleghany 
and the Piedmont was accompanied by a large increase 
in their population. During the two decades from 
1790 to 1 8 10 the population of the former increased 
from 41,219 to 114,195. These settlers found homes 
along the bottom lands of the Ohio and its tributaries. 
During the same period the increase in the population 
of the Piedmont was more than ninety thousand, more 
than half of which was negro slaves. As the small 
farmers of this section sold their holdings and pushed 
farther westward, the lands were engrossed and 

" See Doddridge's Notes (bound with Kercheval's History of 
the Valley), 344. 

*^Hale, Salt (a pamphlet). 

"" At this time salt was selling at five dollars per bushel in the 
Atlantic ports. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 85 

slavery became more important. The total population 
of the Tidewater and the Valley remained practically 
stationary. 

The great development of the trans-Alleghany 
prior to 1807 was not accompanied by pressing de- 
mands for internal communications with the east. 
The river valleys, along which the people were settled, 
were the highways and led to the only market, the 
lower Mississippi. The salt produced there did not 
more than supply the internal demand. At this time the 
western people were more interested in the construc- 
tion of mill-dams, ferries, and smelting furnaces, as 
the numerous acts of the Assembly attested,^^ than in 
communication with the coast. In its final form, John 
G. Jackson, the representative of the trans-Alleghany, 
did not vote for the bill to lay out and to construct 
the Cumberland Road.^^ 

Internal improvements continued, however, to be 
an important interest to the inhabitants east of the 
Blue Ridge. John Dawson and T. M. Randolph, rep- 
resentatives of districts in northern Piedmont, gave 
the only votes from Virginia for the Cumberland Road 
Act. The east looked upon the James and Potomac 
river-improvements as the beginning of larger under- 
takings eventually to connect the east and the west. 
Gallatin's report of 1807 aroused little enthusiasm in 
the west but was received with great favor in the east. 

**See Shepherd, Statutes at Large, III (years 1804, 1805, and 
1806), 44, 54, 158, 171, 238, 245, 246, 272, 275,301, 302, 303, 334. 
349, 401, 403. 

^^ Annals of Cong., 9 Cong., ist sess., 840, 



86 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177^1861 

The Richmond coal operators were especially inter- 
ested in it, for the canal system, which it contemplated, 
would have brought Richmond into closer proximity 
with Philadelphia and New York.^^ 

The semi-nationalistic policy pursued by Jefferson 
as president gave rise to two opposition parties in 
Virginia. They were the 'Tertium Quids" and a 
rejuvenated Federalist party. The rise of the ''Quids," 
as the opposition party east of the Blue Ridge is com- 
monly called, was due largely to the eccentric character 
and the uncompromising attitude of John Randolph 
and to the presence of a large number of ardent strict 
constructionists. The occasions for the formation of 
this party lay in the congressional discussions over the 
Yazoo claims^^ and the relations with Spain, and in the 
unsuccessful outcome of Monroe's negotiations with 
England.^^ Randolph and his followers opposed the 
payment of the claims and favored war with Spain 
and peace with England. Madison, the leader of the 
administration party and the heir apparent to the 
throne, favored the payment of the Yazoo claims. 
Meanwhile Jefferson publicly professed to be with 
Randolph, who had ambitions for the presidency, but 
at heart he was unfriendly to war with any country. 
Randolph's opposition to the payment of the claims 
was heightened by the fact that he had been in Georgia 
when the Yazoo scandal was being aired and by a 

^^ Annals of Cong., 9 Cong., 26. sess., 83, 84. 

"^ Haskins, "Yazoo Land Co.," in Am. Hist. Asso. Rept., 1891. 

®* Garland, Randolph, I, 218, 240-64; Randall, Jefferson, II, 
1 46-50. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 87 

conviction, then formed, that most persons in any way 
connected with it were rascals. 

The Quids never became a factor in local politics. 
When the group was first formed it included practi- 
cally all the congressmen east of the Blue Ridge. But 
when Jefferson and his foreign policy became involved, 
a large part of Randolph's following deserted him. 
In addition to a few outside of the state, those who 
continued to adhere to the Quids, more or less con- 
sistently, were Giles, Gray, Clay, and Garnett, who 
with Randolph claimed to be the only surviving Re- 
publicans of the school of 1798.^^ 

The new Federalist party was in many respects a 
revival of the old Federalist party, but, unlike the 
Quids, it found its chief source of strength west of 
the Blue Ridge. It owed its origin largely to the oppo- 
sition to the Jefferson-Madison policy of war by com- 
mercial restriction. That policy had early deprived 
the farmers of the Valley and the interior counties of 
the Piedmont of a market for their wheat, flour, and 
other products. In 18 12 they were able with difliculty 
to secure four dollars and fifty cents per barrel for 
flour,^^ which under more favorable commercial condi- 
tions could have been sold for more than twelve dollars. 

The effect of the embargo upon local politics did 
not begin to be felt until after the elections of 1807. 
Consequently the Federalists made little showing then 
in either the state or the congressional elections,^"^ but 

^ See Monroe, Writings (ed. Ham.), IV, 486. 

^^ Niles Register, V, 41. 

'^Joseph Lewis of the Loudoun-Fairfax district was re-elected. 



SS SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the election of the following year showed a decided 
reaction in their favor. A large Federalist minority 
was elected to the Assembly. 

Under the leadership of Daniel Sheffey and in 
alliance with the Quids, the Federalists in the Assem- 
bly of i8o8~9 began a movement for reform. The 
armory established in Richmond in 1798, when 
Republicanism was in the ascendant, had always 
been an eyesore to the supporters of a strong na- 
tional government. In 1808 it became currently re- 
ported that the armory was being used for the private 
emolument of its managers and that it was turning out 
an inferior product. Consequently Sheffey found little 
difficulty in securing the appointment of a committee 
of "backwoodsmen" to investigate it. The report sus- 
tained the rumored charges and went so far as to 
accuse the governor of being an accomplice. Accord- 
ingly the west again asserted itself; a law to deprive 
the executive of the power to appoint officials for the 
armory was enacted and the payment of money from 
the state treasury was surrounded by restrictions. This 
airing of mismanagement and inefficiency brought the 
Republican party into great discredit in the west.^^ 

The Quids made a determined stand in the presi- 
dential election of 1808. With the co-operation of 
the Federalists they hoped to defeat Madison, whom 
Jefferson had designated as his successor.^^ They 

^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 480 ; 
Journal, House of Del., 1808-9, 108-14; Va. Argus, March 14, 1809; 
Revised Code of 18 19, 130. 

®* Fa. Argus, March 9, 1809; Randall, Jefferson, III, 253. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 89 

selected as their candidate James Monroe, a staunch 
strict constructionist of the east Virginia school and 
an earnest advocate of peace with Great Britain, who 
had temporarily broken with Jefferson over British 
relations. 

The contest between Monroe and Madison for 
the presidency was confined to Virginia. It began in 
the Assembly, in January, 1808, when a legislative 
caucus favorable to each candidate was held. The 
caucus favorable to Madison's election was attended 
by one hundred and nineteen delegates and senators, 
representatives, for the most part, of Piedmont and 
transmontane counties. The Monroe caucus was at- 
tended by sixty-seven delegates and senators who 
c-ame mostly from the Tidewater and Valley counties."^^ 
As there were only about forty senators and dele- 
gates who did not attend either caucus it is fair to 
presume that some of the Federalists co-operated with 
the anti-administration forces. Later the fight was 
carried into the congressional caucus which the Vir- 
ginia Quids and Federalists favorable to the nomina- 
tion of Monroe refused to attend. 

Practically complete returns gave Madison 12,451 
votes, Monroe 2,770, and Pinckney 435.''^^ The vote by 
counties shows that some counties normally Federalist 
supported Monroe. Such were Loudoun and Frederick 
which Monroe carried by large majorities, whereas 
Pinckney did not receive a single vote in either. 

™Va. Argus, January 26, 1808; ibid., January 29, 1898; Stan- 
wood, Presidency, 90. 

''^ Va. Argus, November 22, 1808. 



90 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The counties of the central Valley gave their opposition 
vote to Pinckney. Monroe's chief source of strength, 
however, was in the Tidewater counties, of which 
twelve gave him more than one-half of his total vote. 
Accomac gave Monroe 397 votes, whereas Madison 
received only 30, and Northampton gave 121 to Mon- 
roe, to 9 for Madison. The large anti-administration 
vote in the Tidewater makes it clear that Jefferson's 
policy of commercial restriction was unpopular there 
and that the section was anti-Jefferson rather than 
anti-strict construction. 

In the elections of 1809, the first congressional 
elections since the embargo, the Quids and Federalists 
showed surprising vigor and strength. Randolph, 
Clay, and Gray were re-elected to Congress, as was 
Joseph Lewis, a Federalist from the Loudoun-Fairfax 
district. But to the great surprise of all, the Valley 
became as solidly Federalist as it had been in 1800 
and 1803. Four members of that party, Daniel 
Sheffey, James Breckenridge, Jacob Swoope, and 
James Stephenson, were elected to Congress. The 
Federalist minority in the Assembly was also greatly 
increased. 

The Federalists and the Quids elected to Congress 
in 1809 united to oppose the administration. The 
events of that year caused the tide to turn in favor of 
war, but these men consistently opposed war ; they also 
tried to procure the repeal of the non-intercourse act, 
and voted against providing a more adequate defense 
and the dismissal of the British minister. "^^ Sheffey 

''^Annals of Cong., 11 Cong., 3d sess., 865; ibid., 2d sess., I, 
1152. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 91 

admitted that American commerce suffered most from 
Great Britain, but, said he, ''the reason is the tyrant of 
Europe has not power to execute his wishes." He was 
unwilHng to trust any man with such a "shady" past 
as Napoleon J ^ 

Although the Quids generally co-operated with the 
Federalists in their attempt to recharter the United 
States Bank, they were not enthusiastic over it. The 
attitude of the Virginia Federalists in this attempt 
deserves, however, special attention. Sheffey was their 
spokesman. He defended the constitutionality of the 
bank on the ground that Congress possessed all power 
"necessary and proper" to carry into execution the 
delegated powers. "Congress," he said, "possesses all 
the attributes of sovereignty," and he insisted that the 
occasion for the exercise of this power rested alone 
with the representatives of the people. He admitted 
that there might be flagrant wrongs done to the 
rights of the minority in this feature of our govern- 
ment, but he insisted that "there never can be any 
usurpation." The charter of a national bank and 
kindred subjects, said he, "must always be a question 
of sound discretion guided by the interests of the 
Union and not a question of power. "^^ 

The congressional election of 181 1 sustained the 
course pursued by the Federalists and the Quids. 
Randolph, Clay, and Gray were re-elected ; and further- 
more the area of Federalist strength was greatly in- 
creased. Three members of that party, Sheffey, 

^^ Ibid., ist sess., I, 401, 402. 
''* Ibid., 3d sess., 733-35. 



92 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Breckenridge, and Baker, secured election from the 
Valley. Lewis was re-elected from the Loudoun 
district, and the trans-Alleghany returned a Federalist 
for the first time since 1793. The Federalist minority 
in the Assembly was at the same time greatly increased. 
In the twelfth Congress, 1811-12, Sheffey and 
Randolph earnestly resisted the new war party. In op- 
position to war the former spoke for the economic in- 
terests of his section. He opposed war because it would 
cut off the market in the West Indies and elsewhere 
for beef, pork, flour, and lumber. He was opposed to 
war with Great Britain, because that country was 
the only nation with whom we had a profitable com- 
merce. He showed that, when the embargo went into 
effect, we exported annually to France goods valued 
at only $2,700,000, while our exports at the same time 
to Great Britain amounted to $28,000,000."^^ The 
Virginia Federalists and Quids voted aye on a 
resolution to postpone a declaration of war,"^^ and 
when war was declared, they opposed the manner 
in which it was conducted,"^^ an increase in the military 
forces,"^ ^ and an appropriation to pay the war debt."^^ 
In the Assembly many delegates from the western 
counties voted against the bill to provide a more ade- 
quate defense for the coast towns.^^ In fact, the 
opposition of the interior counties of Virginia to the 

''^Annals of Cong., 12 Cong., I, 622, 623. 

'"Ibid., II, 1682. 

''''Ibid., 1056. 

'^Ibid., 1 81 3. ""^Ibid., 1798. 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 136. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 93 

War of 18 1 2 was excelled only by that of the New 
England Federalists. 

The congressional elections of 1813 resulted in the 
complete disappearance of the Quid party from Vir- 
ginia. Randolph went down in defeat before J. W. 
Eppes, a war Republican. He was possibly never more 
unpopular in his native state than during the War of 
1812. From Washington he wrote : "By my old neigh- 
bors and my new, I have been entirely neglected. "^^ 
On the other hand, this election shows that the Feder- 
alists were again thoroughly and securely intrenched 
within the state. The redistricting of 1812 produced 
some change in the sectional character of the opposi- 
tion strength, but numerically it did not lose a repre- 
sentative. With the disappearance of the Quids from 
the Tidewater, Bayley, Federalist, secured an election 
from the Accomac district. Lewis, of the Loudoun 
district, Sheffey, and Breckenridge were re-elected and 
Francis White succeeded Baker, each chosen to repre- 
sent districts in the Valley. In the northwestern 
district John G. Jackson again came to the assistance 
of his brother-in-law, Madison, and secured an elec- 
tion as a Republican. But Hugh Caperton, Federalist, 
was elected from the new trans-Alleghany district com- 
posed of counties along the Great Kanawha.^^ 

This period of threatened Federalist ascendency 
in the west was accompanied by a reform movement. 
The things most desired were internal improvements, 

^^ Letters to a Young Relative, 118. 

^ biiles Register, VIII, 192; Debates, Va. Constitutional Con- 
vention of 1829-30, 511. 



94 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

state banks, a greater representation in the Assembly, 
and white manhood suffrage. The census of 18 10 gave 
the west 312,626 white inhabitants and the east 338,- 
827. In the Senate the former section had only four 
members, the latter twenty, while an apportionment 
on the basis of the white population would have en- 
titled the west to nine. The unequal representation in 
this body had resulted in the successive defeat of 
several bills providing for the call of a constitutional 
convention,^^ and threats of dismemberment were 
current. A writer from Dumfries suggested that the 
state be divided into northern and southern Virginia 
by a line passing up the Rappahannock, thence to the 
junction of the Greenbrier and the New rivers, thence 
along the New and the Great Kanawha to the Ohio.^^ 
A writer in the Alexandria Herald suggested Win- 
chester for the seat of government of the proposed 
new state.^^ Numerous mass-meetings passed resolu- 
tions demanding suffrage for all taxpayers and militia- 
men.^^ A meeting held at Harrisonburg, Rockbridge 
County, reiterated, in the form of a resolution, that 
portion of the Bill of Rights, which describes the 
qualifications of those entitled to suffrage.^^ 

The movement finally took form in the Staunton 
Convention. This body met August 19-23, 1816, and 

^^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 258, 259, 
421. 

^Alexandria Herald, August, 18 16; Richmond Enquirer, April 
13, 181 6. A similar proposition had been made in 1796. See 
Baltimore Daily Advertiser, June 30, 1796. 

^^ Alexandria Herald, March 8, 1816; ibid., March 20, 1816. 

"^Ibid,, July 21, 1816. "Ibid., July 21, 1815. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 95 

was attended by sixty-five delegates representing 
thirty-five western counties. Congressman Brecken- 
ridge was president. The convention discussed at 
great length the grievances of the west and ended its 
labors by addressing a memorial to the Assembly. 
This document showed how it was possible for 
204,766 white inhabitants residing in the small 
counties east of the Blue Ridge, a number 72,183 less 
than one-half the total white population of the state, 
to control the action of the Assembly. This condition 
it attributed to "unnatural and accidental" circum- 
stances. It asked that a constitutional convention be 
called empowered to remedy all the defects in the 
government. Six delegates, however, opposed a con- 
vention with such extensive powers and insisted that 
it should be called to make amendments to the consti- 
tution of 1776.^^ 

The persistent and concerted efforts of the reform- 
ers aroused sympathy and alarm in the east. It was 
on this occasion that Jefferson came forward with 
his famous letter of July, 18 16, to Samuel Kercheval. 
This letter later became a text for the preachers of re- 
form. It outlined the early reform movement of 1779 
and suggested many changes in the fundamental law. 
It favored the introduction of the New England form 
of local government, equal representation based on 
white population, free white suffrage, and the election 
of the governor, judges, jurors, and sheriffs by popu- 
lar vote. Jefferson ignored the conservative idea that 

^ Niles Register, XI, 17-24; Alexandria Herald, September 2, 
1816. 



96 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the constitution of 1776 was the best that could be 
made and that it should be preserved out of veneration 
for the fathers. ^^ Ritchie, of the Richmond Enquirer, 
warned the conservatives that they courted danger by 
running counter to public opinion. To the Assembly 
of 1816-17 he said : "If you refuse it this winter, think 
you that the representatives of the people will arrest 
their clamors and complaints? No. The defects in 
the constitution must be amended. Bow, then, to the 
destiny which awaits you; for it is inevitable."^^ 

The conservatives would not vote for a constitu- 
tional convention. They did, however, consent to a 
compromise whereby the west obtained a representa- 
tion in the Senate based upon white numbers in ex- 
change for a law equalizing land values for purposes 
of assessment.^ ^ This compromise and the changed 
conditions following 18 16 caused a temporary sus- 
pension of the reform movement, the sectional and 
political character of which had doubtless prevented 
the most desirable results. Breckenridge and Sheffey, 
its master spirits, were Federalists. Their denuncia- 
tions of Virginia's institutions and political leaders 
were frequently interpreted by the east as demonstra- 
tions of disloyalty and as the mutterings of voices in 
sympathy with the Hartford Conventionists. 

The elections of 181 5 marked a decline in the 
Federalist strength in Virginia, as elsewhere. By 

''^Randall, Jefferson, II, 650; Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), 
37-45. 

'^^ Richmond Enquirer, October 2, 1816. 

®^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 258. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 97 

18 1 7 the party had practically disappeared. The 
Hartford Convention and the successful termination 
of the War of 18 12 brought that party into disrepute. 
By the election of 181 5 the minority in the Assembly 
was greatly reduced, and Joseph Lewis was the only 
Federalist to secure an election to Congress from a 
district east of the Blue Ridge. The trans-Alleghany 
again became solidly Republican, but the Valley re- 
mained Federalist.^^ 

Although their action may seem inconsistent the 
Virginia Federalists, elected in 181 5, in their opposi- 
tion to the recharter of the United States Bank and an 
increase in the tariff measures, at the time deemed 
necessary by the administration to restore credit and 
to protect American industries, spoke for their constitu- 
ents and were not acting in the main as an obstructing 
minority in Congress. They represented farmers and 
graziers, who had no interest to conserve by an in- 
crease in the tariff, and a section interested in the 
incorporation of state banks. The delegates of the 
eastern counties had already defeated a movement on 
the part of the west for the incorporation of fifteen 
state banks. ^^ 

But on the subject of internal improvements the 
west showed its truly nationalistic tendencies. The 
War of 1812 and the events leading thereto made 
this subject an important one to the transmontane 

°^ Niles Register, IX, 280. Sheffey and Breckenridge were re- 
elected and Magnus Tate was elected to succeed White. 

^^ Niles Register, X, 90; Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), X, 2; 
Alexandria Herald, September 2, 181 6. 



98 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA. 177&-1B61 

people. Commercial restrictions, dangers to ocean 
commerce, and the great internal development caused 
trade and immigration to seek an o\^erland route 
across the Alleghanies. In 181 5 both cotton and 
wheat were being transported by wagons from Wheel- 
ing and Pittsburg to the eastern cities.^ ^ The remnant 
of the Federalist party had already become the lead- 
ers in the movement for a better means of communica- 
tion between the east and the west. Marshall and 
Breckenridge had been the dominating power on the 
commission, appointed by the Assembly in 181 2, to 
view the western rivers and to suggest plans for their 
improved navigation.^^ The report of this com- 
mission, which recommended vast schemes of internal 
improvements and suggested the expediency of secur- 
ing a federal appropriation to aid in their construction, 
was adopted by the Assembly of 18 14- 15 by the 
united vote of the west against the east. The same 
Assembly, as well as the following, requested the rep- 
resentatives of the state in Congress to request ''the 
legislature of the Union to manifest an interest in 
internal improvements."^^ 

Thus the representatives of the west, both Repub- 
licans and Federalists, were prepared to support Cal- 
houn's Bonus Bill. In behalf of this measure Sheffey 
spoke for the interests of the transmontane country. 
He believed that the implied powers were sufficient 

^ State Papers, 14 Cong., Doc. No. 75. 

"^Proceedings of the Board of Public Works, I, 6, 28; Re- 
port of the Committee on Roads and Int. Imp. (1831-32), 3. 
"^Ihid., 5. 



FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS 99 

guarantee to Congress for passing the bill, and that 
the sovereign people, speaking through their repre- 
sentatives, should interpret the Constitution to meet 
the exigencies of the times.^^ In opposition to the 
individualistic theory of the Constitution, at this time 
so ably set forth by P. P. Barbour,^^ he insisted that 
the people through their representatives in Congress 
assembled were supreme. 

With one exception each of the representatives of 
districts west of the Blue Ridge voted for the Bonus 
Bill. It received also the support of the representative 
from the Norfolk district. In many respects this 
affirmative vote of the west was the last expression of 
Federalism, as such, in the state. Sheffey, Brecken- 
ridge, and Tate, old-line Federalists, were the chief 
supporters of the bill; but the Republicans of the 
trans-Alleghany and the Norfolk districts were not yet 
so thoroughly imbued with the principles of strict 
construction as to warrant them in voting against a 
measure of such vital interest to their constituents. 

^''Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., 2d sess., 886. 
'Ubid,, 893 ff. 



CHAPTER IV ' 

THE ERA OF GOOD FEELING AND THE RISE OF THE 
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY, 1817-28 

As in national politics, so in Virginia, the period 
following the second British war was one of accord, 
giving place, as years passed, to one of clashing sec- 
tional interests. In the congressional election of 18 17 
nationalism made no stand in the state, except in the 
districts along the Potomac and the projected Cumber- 
land Road; in the former section C. F. Mercer and 
Edward Colston and in the latter James Pindall, all 
orthodox strict constructionists, except that they 
believed in the constitutionality of federal appropria- 
tions to works of internal improvements, were suc- 
cessful candidates. Each of these candidates urged 
his election on the ground that he stood for what 
the state had desired in 181 5 and 1816, when the 
Assembly had asked the federal government to aid it 
in improving the communication between the James 
and the Kanawha rivers.^ 

The efforts to defeat Mercer in 1817 show the 
determination with which the young school of Virginia 

^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, speech of 
C. F. Mercer. Pindall's opponent was J. G. Jackson, who had 
already proposed an amendment to the Constitution to give Con- 
gress power to appropriate money to works of internal improve- 
ment (State Papers, 13 Cong., 2d sess., Doc. No. 20). Jackson 
was again defeated by Pindall in 1819 {Northwestern Gazette, 
May 19, 1819). 

100 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY lOi 

politicians set about to unify the state in its reaction 
against Jeffersonian Republicanism. To effect the 
"complete republicanization" of the Old Dominion 
General Armistead T. Mason resigned his place in the 
United States Senate to contest the election of Mercer 
to the House of Representatives. Both Mason and 
Mercer had extensive and influential family connec- 
tions in the Loudoun-Fairfax district. Mason was of 
the family of George Mason; Mercer of that of 
General Hugh Mercer of revolutionary fame. With 
all the earnestness which the younger school of Vir- 
ginia politicians were able to command, Mason stood 
for the ideas of strict construction so ably enunciated 
by his illustrious ancestor. On the other hand, Mercer 
was true to the nationalistic teachings of the revolu- 
tionary soldier. After a hotly contested election 
Mercer was successful by a scant majority. The 
bitterness which grew out of the contest led to a duel 
between Mason and his cousin, J. M. McCarthy, in 
which the former was killed.^ 

The election of 1817 brought a sweeping change 
in the personnel of Virginia's congressmen. Young 
men of but medium talents generally replaced the 
more illustrious representatives. Among the new men 
were P. P. Barbour, John Floyd, John Tyler, R. L, 
Garnett, and C. F. Mercer, each of them, except 
Mercer, set against the Clay-Calhoun policies of 
nationalism and ambitious to restore the fallen pres- 
tige of Virginia. The change in the current of Vir- 

^ Alexandria Herald, May 9, 181 7; ibid.. May 24, 181 7; ibid., 
February 6, 18, 1819; Va. Hist. Coll., X, 265. 



I02 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ginia politics was evidenced by John Randolph's 
restoration to public favor, he being re-elected to 
Congress. 

Immediately following 181 7 there were many local 
as well as national conditions of importance from a 
sectional standpoint, which contributed to make state 
unity and strict construction popular in Virginia. The 
Federalist party was practically dead; the west had 
been conciliated by reforms and promises; the zeal 
of the young leaders tended toward accord; and a 
group of issues, including the federal Supreme Court 
decisions, internal improvements, and slavery agita- 
tion, furthered these tendencies. 

In 18 1 6 the chief topic of discussion in northern 
and northwestern Virginia was the decision of the 
federal Supreme Court in the case of Martin v. 
Hunter, Lessee. In 1782 the Assembly had con- 
fiscated the claims of the Fairfax heirs, having pre- 
viously declared the Vandalia and Indiana companies' 
claims invalid. In 1789 David Hunter was given a 
patent for lands which had formerly belonged to 
Fairfax, and being refused possession, he later 
brought suit in the District Court of Shenandoah 
County. Failing to sustain his claim there he appealed 
to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which reversed the 
decision of the lower court. Meanwhile Fairfax died, 
bequeathing his right in the disputed property to David 
Martin, who appealed from the decision of the Su- 
preme Court of Virginia to the United States Supreme 
Court. In 181 3 the federal court handed down a deci- 
sion to sustain the lower court of Virginia and issued 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 103 

a mandamus to compel its execution. The decision 
remained unexecuted, however, and in 181 5 the 
Supreme Court of Virginia, under the direction of 
Judge Spencer Roane, took under consideration the 
mandamus of the federal court. The bench was 
unanimous in the opinion that the mandamus should 
not be obeyed and that such appeals from the decisions 
of the state courts to the federal were unconstitu- 
tional.^ In 18 1 6 the federal court, under the direction 
of Chief Justice Marshall, reaffirmed its decision and 
ordered the marshal of western Virginia to execute 
its command.^ This decision did much to diminish 
nationalistic sentiment in the Northern Neck and the 
northwest, its former strongholds. The decision was 
an issue in the contest between Mercer and Mason, 
when George Mason's objections to the ratification of " 
the federal Constitution were brought very cogently 
to mind.^ Besides, those landowners who had 
received grants or made purchases since the confisca- 
tion of the Fairfax, Indiana, and Vandalia claims now 
had material reasons for becoming strict construc- 
tionists. Spencer Roane, who lost no opportunity to 
take advantage of these favorable conditions, became 
popular in the west as well as in the east.^ 

The decision in the case of McCulloiigh v. Mary- 

^ Va. Reports, 4 Mumford, 12. 

* I Wheaton, 304 ; see also Dodd, "Chief Justice Marshall and 
Virginia," in Am. Hist. Rev., XII, 776-87. 

® See chap, ii, p. 56. 

* See Richmond Enquirer, February, 181 6; Branch Papers, II, 
I, 131 ; Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), IX, 530-53' 



I04 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

land was also unpopular In all sections. The east 
opposed it because of the political principles involved;'^ 
the west because of the devotion there to state banks, 
two of which it had finally succeeded in getting.^ 
The western press made copious extracts from the 
attacks of ''Amphictyon" and "Hampden"^ upon na- 
tionalism, and the Northwestern Gazette, published at 
Wheeling, praised the action of Ohio in collecting a 
tax from the branch of the United States Bank located 
at Chillicothe, and insisted that the charter to the fed- 
eral bank was unconstitutional.^^ About the same 
time Pindall presented petitions from sundry citizens 
of Ohio and Brooke counties asking permission to 
pay internal revenue dues in state bank notes. It is 
significant that the west united with the east in the 
Assembly of 18 19 to pass a resolution directing the 
Virginia senators in Congress to oppose the United 
States Bank. 

Those interested in securing better means of in- 
ternal communications came now to rely more upon 
state aid. Alarmed at the renewed activity of New 
York and Philadelphia to direct trade thither they 
became concerned for the future of Richmond. The 
veto of the Bonus Bill had temporarily dashed the 

''Richmond Enquirer, January 22, 1819. 

*The Assembly of 181 7 incorporated the Bank of the Valley, 
located at Winchester, and the Bank of Northwestern Virginia, 
located at Wheeling. 

" Pseudonyms over which Judge Roane wrote (Richmond En- 
quirer, January 22, 181 9). 

^"February 4, 1819; see ibid., April 23, 1818; June 13, 1819; 
October 28, 1819. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 105 

hope of assistance from the federal government. 
Accordingly the east and the west united to create 
the Board of Public Works^^ and a permanent fund 
for internal improvements.^^ The proceeds of the 
internal improvement fund were to be appropriated 
by the Board of Public Works to such approved 
companies as should have previously provided three- 
fifths of the capital stock necessary to complete their 
proposed undertakings. 

The inadequacy of the income from the internal 
improvement fund and the proverbial inactivity of 
the Assembly, however, came near causing a political 
reaction in the transmontane country, where private 
enterprise was unable to avail itself of the benefits of 
the fund, and no important works could be com- 
menced. Accordingly its representatives in Congress, 
although elected as strict constructionists, frequently 
showed a disposition to favor federal internal im- 
provements. Thus the representatives of the trans- 
Alleghany voted for the bill of 1818 to make further 
appropriations to the Cumberland Road, as did those 
of the Valley, who recorded their vote. Still doubtful 
of the course of the state and federal government, 
Ballard Smith, of the Kanawha River district, pro- 
posed to amend this appropriation bill by the addition 

" The board was composed of thirteen members : the governor, 
treasurer, and attorney-general, members ex ofUcio, and ten other 
persons, elected annually by joint ballot of the Assembly. The 
elective members were to be distributed as follows : the Tidewater, 
2 ; the Piedmont, 3 ; the Valley, 2 ; the trans-Alleghany, 3. 

^2 In 1816 the fund amounted to $1,462,140.61. Acts of 1815- 
16, 35, 57; Niles Register, IX, 429, 451. 



lo6 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

of a clause to authorize the federal government to sub- 
scribe two-fifths of the capital stock of any company 
which Virginia might incorporate to effect a com- 
munication between the James and Kanawha rivers.^ ^ 
Tucker, who represented a district in the Shenandoah 
Valley, proposed a similar amendment to aid internal 
improvements in that section. At the same time 
sundry persons, residents of counties between the 
Kanawha and the James, petitioned Congress to aid 
the state in the construction of works of internal im- 
provement.^^ 

The necessity for political union and for the ac- 
complishment of some material results made further 
delay on the part of the conservatives impossible. 
Accordingly the Assembly of 181 9 authorized the 
purchase of the rights of the James River Com- 
pany and assumed the responsibility for continuing 
the James and Kanawha river-improvements at the 
expense of the state. The stockholders of the 
James River Company were to receive 12 per cent, 
per annum on the par value of their stock for 
twelve years, after which they were to receive 15 
per cent. The actual work of construction was 
left to the management of the company, but the 
Board of Public Works was authorized to spend 
annually $200,000, in addition to the income from the 
permanent fund.^^ An act of 1820 further appeased 

^Annals of Cong., 15 Cong., ist sess., II, 1660. 

^* Richmond Enquirer, January 23, 1818; Niles Register, XIII, 
125, 126. 

"Acts of 1 818-19, 39; Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the 
James River and Kanawha Co., 665. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 107 

the west by placing the management of the works on 
the Kanawha and of the proposed turnpike connecting 
the Kanawha and the James under the control of two 
commissions, each composed of persons residing west 
of the Blue Ridge. ^^ At the same time efforts were 
made to purchase the rights and interests of the 
Potomac Company, and surveys were authorized to 
determine the best means of connecting the waters of 
the Potomac and the Ohio.^'^ During the years im- 
mediately following 1 819 many thousands of dollars 
were expended on the James and Kanawha river- 
im_provements and the turnpike connecting them. 

Strange as it may at first seem, the representatives 
of western Virginia in Congress were for the exten- 
sion of negro slavery into Missouri. Both Pindall 
and Smith argued that extension did not necessarily 
increase the evils of negro slavery, or the number of 
those in bondage, and that it permitted diffusion, 
which brought intimate relations between master and 
slave, to the great advantage of the latter.^ ^ Virginia 
gave no vote to exclude slavery from all territory or 
from the proposed state of Missouri, ^^ and the com- 
promise by which Missouri was finally admitted 
received only four affirmative votes, but one of which 
came from west of the Blue Ridge. ^^ 

^® Acts of 1820-21, 49. 

"Alexandria Herald, August 8, 1821 ; Niles Register, XVII, 
440. 

^^ Annals of Cong., 16 Cong., ist sess., I, 996, 1000, 1268-72. 

^^ Ibid., 1 3 16, 1572. 

^° Ibid., II, 1572, 1587; Richmond Enquirer, March 7, 1820. 



io8 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The east feared that agitation on the subject of 
negro slavery would endanger the existence of the 
institution and array the North against the South. In 
such agitation as the Missouri issue occasioned, Jef- 
ferson heard "a fire-bell in the night — the death knell 
of the Union. "-^ The blow given state rights was, 
however, the chief objection raised in that section to 
the Missouri Compromise. In it Roane saw the cause 
of a future war to restore the rights of the states; 
Andrew Stevenson was opposed to any compromise 
with constitutional principles; and Linn Banks, Epps, 
and Ritchie unhesitatingly denounced the compromise 
as a breach of the Constitution.^^ 

In 1820 temporary conditions made a large and 
powerful element in the west favorable to the exten- 
sion of negro slavery. The belief had not yet become 
general there that negro slavery was an economic evil 
and that it was then preventing the material develop- 
ment of the country. True, most of the inhabitants 
disliked the institution, but they disliked the negro 
more. They knew just enough about him to banish 
from their minds exalted opinions of the possibilities 
of his race. Besides, sectional agitation of negro 
slavery was in their minds the greatest menace which 
could befall the Union.^^ The larger portion of the 
inhabitants knew but little about negro slavery and 

^^ Williain and Mary College Quarterly, X, 7 ; Jefferson, Writ- 
ings (ed. Ford), X, 157. 

^Ibid., 7-is. 

^Western Spy, June 22, 1820; National Intelligencer, Sep- 
tember 13, 1820. ^ 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 109 

less about its worst features. Except in small areas 
along the Kanawha and in the Valley, slavery was 
more or less paternal. Few thought of deriving in- 
comes from slave labor or offspring, and overseers 
were unknown. 

A few communities of the west, however, had a 
material interest in slaves. Following the War of 181 2 
much of the land, which had formerly been devoted 
to wheat culture, was given up to tobacco-growing, 
and negroes were purchased to assist in the new in- 
dustry. The total increase in the slave population of 
the Valley during the decade from 1810 to 1820 was 
quite marked.^^ This was also the period when a 
large number of slave-owners found homes in the 
Kanawha Valley. For the most part they were per- 
sons emigrating to the Missouri country, who were 
stopped on the route by the cheapness of lands and 
the opportunity for hiring their negro slaves to the 
salt-makers for cash wages. Some owners were able 
to hire out as many as fifty negroes annually. Soon 
the emigrants became attached to the country and took 
up permanent residences. 

This is also the period when most intense feeling 
existed in the west over the escape of fugitive slaves. 
The humane societies of Pennsylvania and Ohio were 
then doing much to encourage runaways and to in- 
timidate masters trying to apprehend them.^^ In 
some instances masters were thrown into prison on 
the charge of kidnaping, while in others they en- 

^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 260-90. 
^Va. Northwestern Gazette, August 20, 1820. 



no SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

countered mob violence.-^ So intense did feeling in 
western Virginia become that Pindall introduced in 
Congress a resolution to amend the fugitive slave law 
of 1793 so as to make it the duty of the federal gov- 
ernment to apprehend and return runaway slaves.^' 
The press of Wheeling denounced the humane socie- 
ties of Ohio as "inquisitorial tribunals," which "rob 
the master of his legal property to put it into the hands 
of an illegal master." It also insisted that the en- 
thusiasm of the abolitionists made the condition of 
the slave worse, because it made a breach of friendship 
and confidence between him and his master, and 
brought the consequent sale of the slave to the south- 
ern dealer to prevent financial loss.^^ 

But this peaceful period of political unity and 
apparent homogeneity of interests was marked by a 
divergence of industries and interests which were un- 
consciously working toward the destruction of the 
local era of good feeling. Beginning with 1818 and 
extending on through the '20's the east experienced 
a great industrial decline and loss of population.-^ 
The Indian land cessions opened up the Northwest and 
the Southwest, and the cultivation of short staple 
cotton, rendered profitable by the use of the cotton 
gin, had extended the plantation into the uplands of 

^ Va. Northwestern Gazette, November 30, 1820. 

'"Journal, House of Rep., 15 Cong., ist sess., 197. 

^Va. Northwestern Gazette, August 18, 1820; National In- 
telligencer, September 13, 1820. 

^ Prize essay on "Agriculture," in the Lynchburg Virginian, 
July 4, 1833; Niles Register, XLIV, 411; Garland, Randolph, II, 
318; Collins, Domestic Slave Trade, 26. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY iil 

Georgia and South Carolina and into the Gulf states. 
Meanwhile the tobacco-growers were selling their plan- 
tations to become pioneers on the western frontier or 
cotton-planters in the new South. ^'^ Excessive emigra- 
tion not only reduced population but also threw vast 
areas of worn-out lands upon the local markets ; prices 
fell; and many hundreds of acres were given up to 
briars, broom-sedge, and pines. ^^ In the '20's various 
travelers wrote of the gloomy depression with which 
they were filled at the sight of the ''red-gullied and 
turned-out lands" of Virginia. In this period John 
Randolph predicted that the day would come when the 
master would run away from his negroes and be ad- 
vertised by them in the public prints.^^ From 1820 
to 1830 the total increase in the white population in 
the Piedmont and the Tidewater was only 26,524. In 
the Assembly of 1831-32 Thomas Marshall asserted 
that at that time the agricultural products were worth 
no more than they had been eighty years prior when 
the population was only one-sixth as large.^^ Charles 
F. Mercer estimated that the land values in 181 7 had 
been $206,000,000 and that they had fallen in thirteen 
years to $90,000,000.^^ In 181 7 Virginia exported 
goods valued at $8,212,860, but the exports amounted 

^Annals of Cong., i6 Cong., ist sess., II, 1392; Niles Regis- 
ter, XII, 336, 359, 400; ibid., XIII, 35. 

^^ Madison, Writings (ed. 1865), III, 614-16; Lynchburg Vir- 
ginian, July 4, 1833. 

^ Collins, Domestic Slave Trade, 26. 

^Richmond Enquirer, February 2, 1832. 

'"^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 178, 



112 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

to only $3,340,185 in 1828.^^ This was the period 
when Madison was unable to get a loan he wanted 
from the United States Bank, because of the poor 
security he had to offer ;^^ when Jefferson mortgaged 
his home to make good the financial failures of 
friends ;^'^ and when Monroe sold his beautiful home 
at Oak Hill and became dependent upon friends and 
relatives in New York City. 

The superior quality of her tobacco and the 
possession of a surplus of negro slaves were the chief 
economic resources which eastern Virginia possessed 
at this time.^^ The demand for ''Virginia leaf" and 
the sale of the surplus negroes to the southern cotton- 
planters enabled the inhabitants to keep the wolf from 
the door and to maintain a semblance of their former 
hospitality. Petersburg, Lynchburg, Richmond, Nor- 
folk, and Alexandria each contained two or three slave- 
dealers who made a regular business of supplying the 
southern markets. The press of these cities spoke 
enthusiastically of the new South. "It creates," said 
the Alexandria Herald, "a new demand for the slaves 
of the southern states, and increased demands raise 
prices."^^ During the year 1829 Amistead and Frank- 
lin, dealers doing business at Alexandria, are believed 
to have cleared $33,000 in the domestic slave traffic. ^^ 

'^ DeBow, Reviezv, II, 402. --^ Hunt, Madison, 380. 

^''Journal, House of Del., 1829-30, Doc. No. 20. 

^Richmond Enquirer, February 2, 1832; Hunt, Merchants' 
Mag., VI, 473. 

•"September 22, 1833. 

"Tremain, Slavery in the District of Columbia, 236. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 113 

By 1829, however, this traffic suffered a temporary 
decline. The southern states were passing laws to 
restrain or prohibit the trade, and the fall in the price 
of cotton after 1825 decreased the demand for negro 
slaves. Many planters feared that their negroes, 
under these changed conditions, would become as 
valueless a species of property as their exhausted 
realty.^^ 

The new tobacco lands of the West and the South- 
west, together with the constant draining of wealth 
and population from the Piedmont, prevented the up- 
lands of Virginia from undergoing that economic 
transfonnation which the cotton industry effected in 
the uplands of the South.^^ True, the plantation did 
become more firmly established in portions of the 
Piedmont during this period.^ ^ As the small farmer 
had moved to the West and the South the plantation- 
owners had increased the size of their holdings and 
the number of their slaves. By 1828 the negro popu- 
lation was as dense in portions of the Piedmont as in 
the Tidewater, but the amount of tobacco produced 
was not so large as formerly. The impetus given 
the tobacco industry in the Valley following the War 
of 1 81 2 proved only temporary. 

The inhabitants of the east tried various experi- 
ments to retrieve their fallen fortunes. Under stress 

*^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30. 

*^ In 1818 Louisiana exported 24,138 hogsheads of tobacco, 
and Virginia's exports for same time were only 24,736 hogsheads 
(Alexandria Herald, March 29, 1819). 

*^ Debates J Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 62. 



114 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

of necessity Edmund Rnffin began the use of marl, or 
calcareous fertilizing;^* in 18 16, and afterward, nu- 
merous agricultural societies were organized in the 
Tidewater and the Piedmont ;^^ an effort was made 
to establish a chair of agriculture in the University,^^ 
but the movement was defeated by the west, which did 
not appreciate the needs of the east and took this 
opportunity to strike at the hated University; and 
premiums and rewards were offered for good crops 
and well-kept farms. John Taylor deplored "the 
morbid aversion" to writing on subjects pertaining to 
agriculture,^''' and Madison, upon retiring from public 
life, became president of the Albemarle Agricultural 
Society and devoted much attention to its work.^^ 

In their desperation many planters tried to devote 
their lands to cotton-growing. The high price of 
cotton and the consequent prosperity of the South 
caused many to look forward to the day when the 
cotton plant should be the staple in Virginia also.^^ 
They hoped that it would be especially adapted to the 
worn-out lands of the Tidewater; Madison entertained 
this delusion.^^ Enthusiastic letters were written on 
the possibilities of the cotton industry in Virginia.^^ 

** Farm Register, I, 108. ^^ See Acts of Assembly, 1816-26. 

*^ Miles Register, XXIII, 203. 

*^ Western Spy, August 8, 1818. 

*^ Madison, Writings (ed. 1865), III, 63-95. 

*^ Miles Register, XXVII, 3, ns; XXIX, 147, 243. 

"•Madison, Writings (ed. 1865), III, 86. 

" See Richmond Enquirer, August 5, 1826, ibid., December 
19, 1825 ; Richmond Compiler, November 25, 1825 ; Charleston 
(S. C.) Gazette, December i, 1825. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 115 

As an article of commerce [wrote a correspondent to the 
National Intelligencer] cotton is far less fluctuating in value 
and more to be relied upon than tobacco or bread-stuffs. 
Cotton may decline from fifteen to ten cents, but it can hardly 
be so faithless as flour has proved to be in falling from four- 
teen to less than four dollars a barrel in a period of less than 
three years.^^ 

So long as the price of cotton remained distinctly 
high Virginia continued to produce it. During the 
early '20's it was the chief staple in Southampton, 
Sussex, Greenesville, and Nansemond counties. At the 
same time many experiments in cotton-growing were 
made on the upper Potomac and James. The decline 
in prices in the later '20's, and the unfavorable climatic 
conditions, by reason of the short growing season, 
made it impossible to extend the cotton-growing area 
m the state. In a few years cotton ceased to be grown 
except in a few counties along the Roanoke.^^ 

Other attempts to reclaim the worn-out lands of 
eastern Virginia and to rejuvenate her industries were 
generally unsuccessful. Consequently the inhabitants 
attributed their failures to the operation of the Ameri- 
can System; they would not tolerate the idea of giving 

^-National Intelligencer, May 16, 1820. 



63 



'The following table shows the rise and decline of the cotton 
industry in Virginia: 

Year Pounds produced 

1801 5,000,000 

181 1 8,000,000 

1821 12,000,000 

1826 25,000,000 

1834 10,000,000 

— See Turner, Rise of the New West, 47. 



Il6 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Up agriculture for manufacuring. The agricultural 
societies became semi-political organizations and de- 
voted much time to passing resolutions against the 
protective tariff. In vain did Madison and others 
point out the fact that excessive migrations from the 
state were responsible for many of its calamities. But 
those who remained at home refused to see in the 
efforts of friends and relatives to seek new homes and 
fortunes the cause of their undoing. They continued, 
therefore, to support John Floyd,^* one of the greatest 
of the early American expansionists, and to attribute 
the cause of their fallen fortunes to the American 
System. 

Meanwhile the west was undergoing economic 
change. The manufacture of iron became an impor- 
tant industry in several localities in the Valley and in 
the northwest ;^^ the Jackson works on the Cheat 
River were among the most productive in the western 
country. Sheep-raising also became a profitable in- 
dustry in the counties on the upper Ohio and on the 
Monongahela, and even extended to the Valley.^^ 
Wheeling rolled one thousand tons of iron annually 
and cut three hundred tons of nails ;^'^ it had two 
cotton and two woolen mills, each of which employed 
several hundred men. The application of steam to 
water navigation increased the importance of the salt 

"Floyd was made governor in 1829. 

'^Journal, House of Rep., 15 Cong., ist sess., 182; Martin 
and Brockenbrough, Hist, of Va. (ed. 1835), 310, 320, 330, 357, 
389, 390. 

^ Ihid., 320, 330, 362, 390. "Ibid., 406. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 117 

industry and improved the facilities of the manu- 
facturing towns on the Ohio and the Monongahela. 

Meanwhile the northwestern part of the state was 
being settled by persons who had no sympathetic touch 
with the east. Thither came many New Englanders 
and Germans. For the most part they settled in com- 
munities of their own and lived apart politically. The 
largest German settlement was of some five hundred 
souls, and was located in Preston County near Mount 
Carmel.^* It did not tolerate slavery. The largest 
settlement of New Englanders was on French Creek 
in Lewis County. It numbered about four hundred 
persons, and was divided into five school districts, each 
with a common school. ^^ 

As compared with eastern Virginia the west, 
within the state, was progressing.^^ But the develop- 
ment was not what settlers of a new country of bound- 
less resources had reason to expect. Both in wealth 
and population the West beyond them was advancing 
more rapidly. In 1830 the larger part of western 
Virginia was inhabited by from two to six persons 
to the square mile. At the same time it was bounded 
on the north and west by a semicircle of free white 
population, which numbered from forty-five to ninety 
souls to the square mile.^^ It was with chagrin that 
the inhabitants looked upon the immigrant wagons 
that passed over the Cumberland Road and down the 

^ Ibid., 421. Many Germans also found homes in Wheeling. 

^Ibid., 385. 

^Niles Register, XLIII, 146. 

*^ Census Map, 1890, XX. 



Ii8 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, i775-i86i 

Kanawha to the more prosperous trans-Ohio West. 
In 1829 a resident of the Kanawha Valley wrote: 
"They go on careless of the varying climate and ap- 
parently without regret for the friends and relatives 
they leave behind, seeking forests to fell and new 
countries to settle. "^^ Some western Virginians, in- 
deed, joined the caravans and moved on into the 
farthest West; others remained to fight the battle of 
reform and nationalism. 

When the inhabitants of western Virginia com- 
pared their condition with that of their neighbors in 
the free states, they were made conscious that their 
development was being retarded. At this time of vast 
expenditures for roads and canals, it was only natural 
for them to attribute the cause of their misfortunes 
to the inefficiency of the state as an agent for such 
purposes. Accordingly they again came to look upon 
the federal government as a better agent than the state 
government for effecting communication between the 
east and the west, and in time they espoused the whole 
of the American System. 

In 1818 citizens of Shenandoah and Frederick 
counties had petitioned Congress for an increase in 
the duty on bar, pig, and cast iron, but the Virginia 
west in general showed little interest in the tariff bill 
of 1820. On the other hand, the east was actively 
opposed to the bill of that year, the agricultural socie- 
ties taking the lead. A memorial from the united 
societies insisted that the embarrassment to American 
manufacturers was not due to inadequate protection 

'^^ National Intelligencer, November 4, 1829. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 119 

but to a desire to realize returns on fictitious capital.^^ 
Thomas Newton, of the Norfolk district, alone voted 
for the bill, and all the other Virginia congressmen 
opposed it. 

Meanwhile western Virginia began to develop a 
sentiment favorable to the protective system. In 1821 
citizens of Hampshire County memorialized Congress 
for a general increase in the tariff.^"* Later, citizens of 
the Valley sent petitions praying protection for iron 
manufacturers, and the w^ool-growers of the north- 
west asked it for wool.^^ 

As the sentiment for a protective tariff increased 
in the North, eastern Virginia became more bitter in its 
denunciations of the American System. In its attack 
thereon the Richmond Enquirer pointed to the coun- 
try north of the Potomac as the place where the people 
were losing interest in the preservation of the Consti- 
tution; where the public expenditures were being 
made; where the United States Bank sat in majesty; 
where the spirit of mercantile cupidity was enveloping 
itself in the mantle of monopoly and privilege; and 
where the people wished to enthrone the federal gov- 
ernment and debase that of the states.^^ Jefferson, 
regarded by some as the father of the American Sys- 
tem, now thought it unsound policy and unfair to tax 
agriculture for the purpose of promoting manufactur- 

^ Annals of Cong., 16 Cong., ist sess., II, 2323. See Appen- 
dix, ibid., 2296. 

^Journal, House of Rep., 16 Cong., 26. sess., 178. 
^ Ibid., 18 Cong., ist sess., 134, 174, 194, 212. 
^^ August 8, 1 82 1. 



I20 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ing.^^ The agricultural societies continued to petition 
Congress against any further increase in the tariff 
duties.^^ It was at this time that many strict con- 
structionists began to question the constitutionality 
of a tariff for protection. 

The representatives from eastern Virginia argued 
at great length against the tariff bill of 1824. They 
were most opposed to the increased duty on woolens, 
that on "napt cotton," a coarse woolen cloth used in 
making clothing for negro slaves, being the most 
obnoxious. A memorial from Richmond and Man- 
chester contained data to show that such a duty would 
be equivalent to a direct tax of at least twenty-four 
thousand dollars annually upon Richmond and its 
vicinity. ^^ With the exception of the representative 
of the extreme northwestern district, who voted for 
the bill, the solid delegation of Virginia voted against 
the tariff of 1824.'^^ 

The tariff of 1824 produced a storm of indigna- 
tion in the east. Jefferson, now bent with the infirmi- 
ties of age, came forward to denounce it. He wrote 
the veteran Giles, the "younger recruits who, having 
nothing in them of the feelings or principles of '76, 
now look to a single and splendid government of an 
aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and 

"Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), X, 8, 285; Niles Register, 
XXXVIII, 294. 

^Journal, House of Rep., 16 Cong., 2d sess., 30, 32, 69, 95; 
ibid., 17 Cong., ist sess., 69, 138, 162, 200; ibid., 18 Cong., ist 
sess., 243, 245, 304. 

^^ Ibid., 18 Cong., ist sess., II, 3098. 

""^ Ibid., 18 Cong., ist sess., II, 1921. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 121 

moneyed corporations."'''^ Madison was much milder 
in his criticism ; he did not deny the constitutionahty 
of a protective tariff, but doubted its expediency. He 
recognized that it was difficult to protect the interests 
of a minority in a government based on the rule of 
the people, but he insisted that the Supreme Court 
was adequate to the duty of determining the constitu- 
tionality of laws."^^ The press and the political 
leaders accepted the ideas of Jefferson, and were en- 
thusiastic to return to the principles of 1798. 

The increased demand for greater protection to 
articles of woolen manufacture added new strength to 
the anti-protection sentiment in the east. Fewer memo- 
rials and petitions were sent to Congress, but resolu- 
tions denouncing the principles of the American System 
were passed annually by the Assembly. On the other 
hand, the west became more desirous of protection. 
The salt manufacturers on the Kanawha and Holston 
rivers were beginning to feel the effect of com- 
petition of the salt from the West Indies, imported by 
way of New Orleans. Meanwhile the wool-growers 
and manufacturers were increasing the scale of their 
industries.'^ ^ Petitions praying an increase in the 
tariff duties continued to come in increasing numbers 
from the transmontane people. Northwestern Vir- 
ginia sent two delegates to the Harrisburg Convention 
of 1827. Except those from Kentucky, there were no 

^^ Jefferson, Writings (ed. Ford), X, 356. 

"Madison, Writings (ed. Cong.), Ill, 483, 507; see also 
Madison, Cabell Letters. 

''^Journal, House of Rep., 20 Cong., ist sess., 419. 



122 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

other members of that body from states south of the 
PotomacJ^ 

The debates on the Woolens Bill and the tariff of 
1828 brought out no new features in the position of 
either the east or the west. The representatives of 
the west said nothing, but voted for the tariff. Map I 
shows practically all the area now embraced in West 
Virginia voting for the tariff of ''Abominations," 
while the east was as solidly against it. Those voting 
aye were: Leffler, Armstrong, and Maxwell, all Na- 
tional Republicans.'^^ 

When the state had assumed the responsibility for 
the construction of works of internal improvement, 
the west had expected results ; but they were not forth- 
coming, and a decided return to nationalism fol- 
lowed."^^ Already its representatives in Congress had 
voted for the bill of 1822 to provide for the preserva- 
tion of the Cumberland Road."^^ In 181 7 Madison's 
veto of the Bonus Bill had been readily acquiesced 
in by the inhabitants of western Virginia; but in 1822 
they were highly incensed at Monroe's veto of a 
similar bill, and their representatives in Congress 
voted to pass it, over the president's veto."^^ 

During the spring and summer of 1823 numerous 
mass-meetings were held along the Potomac and in 
the northwest to encourage internal improvements by 

'^Niles Register, XXXII, 388, 417. 
""^ Reg. of Cong. Debates, IX, Part II, 2472. 
''^Alexandria Herald, January 9, 1822. 
^''Annals of Cong., 17 Cong., ist sess., II, 17 34- 
^^ Ibid., 17 Cong., ist sess., II, 1874. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 123 

the federal government. So pronounced was public 
opinion that Monroe began to feel doubtful of the 
wisdom of the position he had taken in the veto 
message of 1822/^ This popular movement led to 
the surrender of the rights and interests of the Po- 
tomac Company, and to the incorporation of the 
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. Notwithstand- 
ing the fact that this proposed canal was to be con- 
structed in part by funds derived from the federal 
government, the influence of western and northeastern 
Virginia in the Assembly was sufficient to secure the 
ratification of the act to incorporate the new company 
and an appropriation to it.^^ For a time the Assembly 
showed a disposition to abandon the internal improve- 
ments on the James and Kanawha rivers. 

The vacillation of the Assembly increased the 
jealousy of sections. Appropriations continued to be 
defeated, and efforts were made to rescind the Chesa- 
peake and Ohio Canal Company's charter.^^ To 
counteract this attempt an appropriation was made to 
be used in constructing a canal, commonly known as 
the Blue Ridge Canal, around Balcony Falls where 
the James breaks through the Blue Ridge.^^ 

'^J. H, U, Studies, XVII, 490. 

^ Later some of the strict constructionists tried to explain 
their action on this occasion by insisting that Congress had aided 
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in the capacity of the local legis- 
lature of the District of Columbia (Debates, Va. Constitutional 
Convention of 1829-30, 146). 

^Richmond Enquirer, January 2s, 1823. 

^ Pamphlet, Report of the Committee on Roads and Int. Imp. 
(1831-32), 25; Niles Register, XXVI, 16. 



124 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The encouragement contained in the document, 
"Views on the Subject of Internal Improvements," 
which accompanied Monroe's veto message of 1822, 
called forth the General Survey Bill of 1824, so 
popular in western Virginia. This bill gave the 
President power to make surveys for such roads and 
canals as he deemed of national importance for com- 
mercial, military, and postal purposes. In the minds 
of its supporters it contemplated a system of national 
internal improvements. For this reason it met strenu- 
ous opposition in eastern Virginia. John Randolph 
declared that its enactment into law implied the pos- 
session of sufficient power by Congress to emancipate 
every slave in the Union. ^^ 

Map I, showing Virginia's vote on the tariff of 
1828, serves also for a map of her vote on the General 
Survey Bill.^'* The districts voting aye are in each 
case the same, although those not voting are not quite 
identical. As has been shown, but one representative 
voted for the tariff of 1824. This vote, when com- 
pared with that on the General Survey Bill, shows 
what was undoubtedly true of western Virginia, 
namely, a greater interest in internal improvements 
than in other features of the American System. 

Meanwhile the steam railway became a factor in 
internal improvements, which now became more com- 
plex than ever in Virginia. In 1826 the Baltimore 
and Ohio Railroad Company was incorporated. Im- 
mediately it appealed to Virginia and Pennsylvania for 

^Annals of Cong., 18 Cong., ist sess., I, 1296-13 11. 
^ See ibid., 18 Cong., ist sess., I, 1468. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 125 

the privilege of constructing its proposed lines across 
their territory. The request was granted by Virginia, 
but only after a severe sectional contest. 

To avoid competition with the Erie Canal and the 
Pennsylvania lines of improvement the Baltimore and 
Ohio Company desired to reach the Ohio by the 
most southern route possible. Accordingly it asked 
permission to construct its lines along the Shenandoah 
to the headwaters of the Kanawha, thence by that 
stream to the Ohio.^^ The inhabitants of the Valley 
and the Kanawha section heartily indorsed the scheme. 
The western press was full of letters and editorials 
designed to influence the action of the Assembly. Un- 
willing to make the west the backyard to Baltimore 
and to injure the possibility of Richmond as a com- 
mercial city, the Assembly refused the request and 
restricted the western terminus of the proposed road 
to such a point as the company might select north 
of the mouth of the Little Kanawha.^^ There 
was considerable sentiment in the east favorable to 
keeping the road out of the state entirely,^^ and later 
an effort was made to repeal the act whereby per- 
mission had been given it to construct its lines across 
Virginia territory.^^ 

When strict construction became more popular in 
the east and when it became certain that the Chesa- 

^Niles Register, XXXIII, 163. 

*"Acts of Assembly, 1826-27, 77-84; Report of Committee on 
Roads and Int. Imp. (1831-32), 35 ; Niles Register, XXXII. 

^ Virginia Advocate, May 3, 1828. 

^Richmond Enquirer, December, 1829. 



126 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

peake and Ohio Canal would be largely a national 
enterprise under the direction of Adams, Virginia 
began to oppose the scheme for connecting the 
Potomac and Ohio rivers by a canal.^^ In 1826 the 
state engineer reported that a canal connecting the 
James and the Kanawha was practicable, but he sug- 
gested that the work be not undertaken until it was 
known whether or not the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 
would be constructed. For a brief period the Assem- 
bly remained friendly to this recommendation, but the 
necessity for a greater demonstration against nation- 
alism caused a reaction. Ten days after Adams 
threw the first spade of dirt from the proposed Chesa- 
peake and Ohio Canal, the east Virginians held an 
internal improvement convention at Charlottesville. 
The object was to revive interest in the scheme of con- 
necting the James and the Kanawha by a continuous 
canal, now a rival scheme to that of the federal gov- 
ernment on the Potomac. ^^ The Assembly of 1828 
also defeated a bill to make further appropriations to 
the capital stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio Com- 
pany.^^ 

Delays and changes in plans heightened the dis- 
content of the west and made the national plan more 
popular. The presence of several corps of surveyors 
tended to keep the subject of internal improvements 

^Debates, Va, Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 148. 

^Niles Register, XXXIV, 345; Debates, Va. Constitutional 
Convention of 1829-30, 143. Madison, Marshall, Monroe, James 
Barbour, Mercer, and Professor Dew, of William and Mary, were 
members of this convention. 

*^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 127. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 127 

continually before the inhabitants. In 1828 the west 
was overrun by three corps of engineers, one in the 
employ of the state, another in the employ of the 
federal government, and still another in the employ of 
the Baltimore and Ohio Company.^^ The incessant 
discussion between the advocates of the sluice and 
dam system, of continuous canals, and of railroads 
respectively did not contribute to political unity and 
accord. 

The presidential elections of 1824 and 1828 are 
important from a sectional standpoint, as the various 
issues involved in each were the tariff, internal im- 
provements, and local reform. Before the state be- 
came divided sectionally on these subjects it would 
have been difficult to tell which of the two favorites 
in 1824, Crawford or Adams, had the stronger follow- 
ing.^^ James Barbour, United States senator, favored 
the election of Adams, and John Taylor, United States 
senator for a few months of the year 1824, was, for 
a time at least, not unfriendly to it. By most persons 
Adams was then regarded as a good Republican of 
the Jefferson type ; his character was above reproach ; 
he was the heir apparent to the throne ; and domestic 
tranquillity seemed to demand his election, since the 
North had not had a president in a quarter of a 
century. Besides, his official conduct had not made 
him unpopular.^* On the other hand, Crawford's 

^- Niles Register, XXXIII, 163; Washington and Lee Hist. 
Papers, No. 5, p. 63 ; Register Cong. Debates, 19 Cong., 2d sess., 
Ill, 1565; Report of Com. on Road and Int. Imp. (1831-32), z^. 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, January 26, 1822. 

^ Ibid., January 26, 1822; Alexandria Herald, May 5, 1823. 



128 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177^1861 

business methods and executive ability were not above 
criticism. He also had supported the "infamous 
regime" under John Adams, and the recharter of the 
United States Bank. By the strict constructionists he 
was frequently dubbed "one of the tribe of South 
Carolina Federalists."^^ 

In the early stages of the contest of 1824 the 
support given the less popular candidates, Jackson, 
Clay, and Calhoun, was more sectional in character 
than either the Adams or Crawford following. Jack- 
son had a following in the counties of the southwest; 
Clay was popular in the counties along the Cumber- 
land Road;^^ and the internal improvement interests 
of the west were not unfriendly to Calhoun. Not one 
of these candidates was seriously mentioned in the 
east. Calhoun was especially objectionable to the 
young school of state-rights politicians.^'^ By them 
he was regarded as a "sort of prodigy, nigro simil- 
limus cygno/'^^ A letter to the Richmond Enquirer, 
in 1824, gives a fair estimate of the popular conception 
then entertained in the east regarding Calhoun. 

He has no friends [said the writer] in Virginia who will 
rally on the hustings in any of her districts. His kindly man- 
ners and fine genius may attract a few stragglers here and 
there to his banners, but no considerate Virginian who values 
the constitution of his country will lend himself to the care 
of an ultra politician of the federal school.** 

^Richmond Enquirer, January 22, 1822; ibid., January 27, 
1822; Alexandria Herald, January 11, 1823; ibid., January 26, 1823, 
'"^Richmond Enquirer, January 22, 1822. 
^ Ibid., January 26, 1822. 
*^ Ibid., December 19, 1822. 
^ Ibid., February 12, 1824. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 129 

As the interest in internal improvements and the 
tariff discussions became intense the Adams and 
Crawford followings became more sectionaHzed.^^^ 
Crawford's open declaration of devotion to the princi- 
ples of strict construction won friends in the east. On 
the other hand, Adams' refusal to commit himself gave 
his supporters there no position to maintain, and a 
large number ultimately deserted him. By 1823 the 
Enquirer had espoused Crawford's candidacy and was 
earnestly pressing the Adams supporters for a state- 
ment of principles. ^*^^ None came, and the extreme 
state-rights advocates began to doubt the orthodoxy 
of the favorite son of Massachusetts. They went so 
far as to criticize Adams for deserting his state in 
1807.^^^ Meanwhile Crawford's nationalistic tenden- 
cies were forgotten; his assailants were refuted as 
calumniators and liars; "his firmness of character and 
his disinterested patriotism of 18 16," when he readily 
acquiesced in the election of Monroe to the presidency, 
took precedence of all other considerations.^ ^^ The 
west preferred Adams with no statement of political 
principle to Crawford resting his candidacy upon a 
platform which they did not like. 

Meanwhile Jackson's candidacy increased in popu- 
larity in the west and detracted from the Adams 
strength there. Jackson and reform struck a responsive 
chord in those parts of the state which had long been 

^"^Ibid., May, 1823. 

^'^^ Ibid,, May 5, 1826; ibid., October 29, 1823. 

^^ Alexandria Herald, October 10, 16, 29, 1823. 

^'^ Richmond Enquirer, May 5, 1824; ibid., July 4, 1823. 



130 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

contending with conservatism. In April, 1824, the 
Jackson supporters held several mass-meetings in the 
western counties. That of Warrenton/^^ Fauquier 
County, appointed committees of correspondence, and 
inaugurated a systematic campaign. The east refused 
to consider Jackson seriously ; Ritchie was even severe 
in his criticism of him. He feared Jackson would be- 
come the tool of designing politicians, and that his im- 
petuous temper would thoroughly disqualify him for 
the position of chief executive.^^^ When the congres- 
sional caucus for nominating presidential candidates 
became an issue in the campaign, Jackson's popularity 
in the west increased. In January, 1824, members of 
the Assembly held a convention to discuss the New 
York letter favoring a continuation of the caucus 
method of nomination. Out of a total of 236 delegates 
and senators, 168 attended. Few of the western coun- 
ties were represented in this meeting by their full 
delegation in the Assembly. Some were not repre- 
sented at all; others by only one delegate.^^^ At this 
time Ritchie was in favor of the continuation of the 
congressional nominating caucus. He believed it was 
a choice between an election by the people and an elec- 
tion by the House of Representatives. In the latter 
alternative he feared a deadlock and the promotion 
of Calhoun to the presidency.^ ^^ 

'"^Alexandria Herald, April 23, 26, 1824. 

'^^Ibid., September 17, 1824; Richmond Enquirer, March 2, 
1824; ibid., March 19, 1824. 

^^^ Ibid., January 6, 13, 22, 1824. 
^'^ Ibid., February 12, 1824. 















CJ 










n 






















































— 


_ 







-a 
< 
























RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 131 

Notwithstanding the fact that the congressional 
caucus, which placed Crawford in nomination for the 
presidency, was largely a New York, North Carolina, 
and Virginia affair, most of the representatives of the 
transmontane country in Virginia did not attend it.^^^ 
Immediately following Crawford's nomination mem- 
bers of the Assembly met in a convention to name 
electors for the Democratic ticket. One hundred and 
sixty-three members, mostly from the counties east of 
the Blue Ridge, attended. Of this number 139 voted 
for Crawford electors, 7 for Adams, 6 for Jackson, 
and 5 for Clay. The Enquirer estimated that the 73 
members who did not attend were about evenly divided 
between Jackson and Adams.^^^ 

In the summer of 1824 efforts were made in the 
west to induce the supporters of Clay and Adams to 
unite against the Crawford party in favor of Jackson, 
but without success. Accordingly the popular vote 
went to four candidates, viz.. Clay, Jackson, Adams, 
and Crawford. There was, however, little enthusiasm 
in the election, not half of the full vote being polled.^ ^*^ 
Returns practically complete gave Clay 418 votes, 
Jackson 2,850, Adams 3,389, and Crawford 8,408.^^^ 

The accompanying Map II gives the vote of Vir- 

^''^The trans-Alleghany was not represented (ibid., January 15, 
1824; February 19, 1832). 

^^Ihid., February 24, 1824; ibid., January 6, 1824; ibid., 
February 24, 1824. 

^^^Ibid., August 6, 1824. 

"^ Complete returns may be gathered from the Richmond En- 
quirer following November 5, 1824. 



132 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ginia by counties in the presidential election of 1824. 
It shows those counties interested in internal improve- 
ments and predisposed to nationalism voting for 
Adams and Clay. Jackson's largest vote came from 
the southwestern part of the state where the interest 
in internal improvements was not strong. Crawford 
carried isolated counties in the west, but his chief vote 
came from the Piedmont and the Tidewater. The 
vote for both Jackson and Clay was purely sectional, 
neither receiving more than a few votes east of the 
Blue Ridge. On the other hand, Adams received a 
strong minority vote in most of the eastern counties, 
as did Crawford in the western. 

When the presidential election was taken to the 
House of Representatives, Powell, who represented the 
district on the lower Shenandoah, voted for Adams. 
A representative from the southwestern part of the 
state voted for Jackson, but the remaining vote was 
given to Crawford.^ ^^ 

In the presidential election of 1828 internal im- 
provements played the important part. Under the 
provisions of the General Survey Act, Adams had kept 
a corps of surveyors employed almost constantly in 
those districts of the state where their presence would 
be most conducive to nationalism. ^^^ So long as 

"* The vote of the electoral college was for Nathaniel Macon 
for vice-president. 

""At this time James Barbour of Virginia was secretary of 
war and did much to aid Adams in his effort to nationalize 
Virginia. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 133 

Adams operated under the provisions of the Survey 
Act, the strict constructionists were not in a position 
to interfere. But in 1826 a resolution was introduced 
in the House to appropriate $30,000 to be used in 
making surveys not provided for by the act of 1824. 
A debate which throws much Hght upon Virginia 
poHtics ensued. 

W. C. Rives, spokesman for the east on this occa- 
sion, denounced the General Survey Act and the 
proposed appropriation as the modus operandi of an 
extensive system of internal improvements to be under- 
taken by the federal government. The influence of the 
proposed appropriation, he argued, could be measured 
only as the compound ratio of the whole sum 
necessary to complete the works contemplated by the 
surveys which it would make. He believed that a 
concerted effort was on foot to melt down the political 
scruples of Virginia ''in the crucible of mercenary in- 
terest" and that ''reconnaissances and surveys wxre to 
be the powerful menstruum by which the solution was 
to be effected." "Political engineering" and "topo- 
graphical arguments," he alleged, were being used to 
smother out Jackson majorities along the Cumberland 
Road.ii* 

Most of the representatives from the transmontane 
districts felt personally called upon to answer Rives. 
The chief refutation was made, however, by Mercer 
of the Loudoun district. He reviewed the internal 

^^ Register of Cong. Debates, III, 1262-78. 



134 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

improvement history of Virginia in an effort to show 
that he and his colleagues from the west had not de- 
parted from the principle entertained by the state in 
181 5 and 1816.^^^ Joseph Johnson, of the north- 
western district, assured Rives that notwithstanding 
''literal construction" and "construction construed," 
favorite expressions of John Taylor, of Caroline, east- 
ern Virginia knew absolutely nothing of the feelings 
and interests of the west.^^^ Powell denied that the 
inhabitants of western Virginia were disciples of the 
strict construction school, and assured the east that 
they would vote for no candidate for the presidency 
who denied the power of Congress to make appropria- 
tions to work of internal improvements. ^^"^ 

The election of 1828 was the most hotly contested 
which had yet taken place in Virginia. It was really 
the first election since that of 1800 to be participated 
in by two clearly defined and well-organized parties. 
In the absence of a more orthodox candidate the east 
accepted Jackson. Adams had a strong following there, 
but his greatest following was in the west. The total 
popular vote was 38,859,^^^ which was almost two and 
one-half times the total vote of 1824. Of this vote 
Adams received 12,107, which was four-fifths of the 
total vote given all four candidates in 1824. The in- 
creased vote came largely from the western counties 



^^ Register of Cong. Debates^ III, 1285. 

"^"Ibid., Ill, 1320. 

^"Ibid., Ill, 1 3 12. 

^^ Richtnond Enquirer, November 28, 1828. 



RISE OF NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY 135 

and was called forth by the increased interest in reform 
and internal improvements.^ ^^ 

Map III of this chapter shows the vote of Virginia 
by counties in the election of 1828. Most counties in 
those sections intensely interested in internal improve- 
ments gave either majorities or large minorities for 
Adams. On the other hand, those counties where the 
sentiment for strict construction and the desire for 
local reform were strongest gave majorities for Jack- 
son. 

This election does not, however, show clearly the 
sectional character of political parties in Virginia, 
because the issues were too complicated. Many nation- 
alists voted for Jackson, because his congressional 
record in favor of internal improvements and a tariff 
appealed to them. Jackson's personality is also an 
element which must be reckoned with in trying to 
account for his political success. The results of the 
congressional elections of 1825 and 1827 and the votes 
taken in the House of Delegates on federal relations 
afford a much better basis for a judgment of the status 
of political parties than does the presidential election 

""The following table shows the increased popular vote in 
some of the western counties : 



County 


Year 


1824 


1828 


Botetourt 


138 
440 
105 
296 
72 


469 

1083 
452 
761 


Frederick 


Montgomery 

Ohio 


Harrison 


728 







136 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177^1861 

of 1828. In the contest of 1825 the Valley returned 
three National Republicans, namely, A. H. Powell, 
Benjamin Estil, and William Armstrong. At the 
same time all those Democratic-Republican representa- 
tives, from the trans-Alleghany and from the districts 
along the Potomac, who believed in the constitution- 
ality of federal appropriations to works of internal 
improvement, were re-elected.^ ^^ In the election of 
1827 the National Republicans made further gains. 
Notwithstanding the fact that Joseph Johnson and 
William Smith, the representatives from the trans- 
Alleghany, had voted for federal appropriations to 
works of internal improvements, they went down to 
defeat in an effort to secure a re-election. Their suc- 
cessors were Lewis Maxwell and Isaac Leffler, pro- 
nounced Clay men. Practically all the delegates from 
the counties west of the Blue Ridge voted against the 
resolutions on federal relations, adopted annually by 
the House of Delegates for several years following 

1825. 

^^ They were : Mercer and Taliaferro from districts along the 
Potomac, Newton from the Norfolk district, and Johnson and 
Smith from the trans-Alleghany. 



CHAPTER V 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 

The constitutional convention of 1829-30 was the 
result of a half-century of conflict between the east 
and the west over representation, suffrage, and abuses 
in the state and local g-overnments. In 1828 the House 
of Delegates consisted of two hundred and fourteen 
members; the Senate of twenty-four. Of this number 
the transmontane country with a total white population 
of 254,196 had only eighty delegates and nine senators, 
while the cismontane country with a total white popu- 
lation of 348,873 had one hundred and thirty-four 
delegates and fifteen senators. An apportionment on 
the basis of white population would have made little 
change in the representation of either section in the 
Senate, but it would have entitled the west to ninety 
delegates and the east to one hundred and twenty-four. 
Such a reapportionment would have involved a sacri- 
fice of political power on the part of both the Tide- 
water and the trans-Alleghany. Accordingly these 
sections were not anxious for such a change or over- 
enthusiastic for a constitutional convention. 

An extension of suffrage was a subject only sec- 
ondary in importance to that of reapportionment of 
representation. The law regulating this privilege had 
remained from 1776, except that the number of acres 
of improved land, the possession of which entitled one 
to a vote, had been reduced from fifty to twenty-five. 

137 



138 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The estimates, generally accepted in 1829, fixed the 
number of those who could vote then at 45,ooo.^.U'At 
least 31,000^ men of legal age and taxpayers, several 
thousand paying on realty, were then excluded from 
the right of suffrage. Merchants, mechanics, and 
others, unattached to the soil, had been petitioning the 
Assembly for this right for more than a quarter of a 
century. 

Meanwhile grave abuses had arisen in the exercise 
of suffrage in the western counties. There it was an 
easy matter to secure enough unimproved land to 
entitle one to the privilege. Mountain land was as 
cheap as "mountain dew," and much of it was used 
for the same purpose, namely, to carry elections. The 
barren lands of some counties were shingled over with 
patents held for the sole purpose of entitling their own- 
ers to suffrage.^ The demands for a greater electorate 
were general, but were loudest in the east. Cheap 
lands were not so abundant there, and the eastern cities 
contained many landless artisans.^ 

Much dissatisfaction had also arisen over the con- 
duct of the legislature. The prolonged discussions on 
federal relations did not receive a hearty response west 
of the mountains. Reformers believed that thousands 
of dollars might be saved annually by trimming down 
the legislative expenses and that this expenditure might 
be applied to better purposes upon roads and canals. 

^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of iS^g-so. 

'This number did not include 22,000 men who worked the 

roads and performed military service (ibid., 423, 424). 
^ Ibid., 757. *'Ibid., 692. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 139 

Accordingly they proposed to limit the Assembly both 
in membership and in the frequency and duration of 
its sessions. 

In the west grave dissatisfaction was felt over 
the existence and character of the governor's council 
and the reputed abuse of its powers in connection 
with the internal improvement and literary funds. 
Accordingly the people desired a more responsible 
executive and the abolition of the Privy Council. 

The county courts were also a source of much dis- 
satisfaction. In many counties these bodies had become 
close corporations. The members were appointed by the 
governor, but only on recommendation of the sheriff, 
who was himself generally in close personal touch with 
the court. Persons receiving the appointment as sheriff 
were, as a rule, members of the county court, and gen- 
erally returned to it when their term of office as sheriff 
had expired. The court combined the executive, legis- 
lative, and judicial functions in the county govern- 
ment; it appointed civil officers and all military 
officials below the rank of brigadier-general; it laid 
the county levy ; in many cases the offices of honor and 
profit, even the petty positions, were bestowed either 
upon its members or their relatives. New families 
and those long excluded from a participation in public 
affairs were hostile to this institution and anxious to 
bring it and the whole official system to an elective 
basis. 

The reformers also wanted to wipe out the abuses 
which had developed in many of the older localities 
in the sheriff's office. This office was usually appropri- 



I40 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ated by members of the county court who accepted it 
to compensate their gratuitous services as judges. 
It was passed on from one member of the court to 
another, and was in each case usually farmed out to a 
deputy. In some cases the privileges of the office 
were sold at public auction.^ The opportunity for 
peculation and extortion which the office afforded was 
so great that deputies frequently paid as much for its 
privileges as the legal fees from it amounted to. In 
some counties the sheriff's office remained for years 
in the hands of professional "paper shavers."^ 

• Had conditions been such as to involve no other 
questions than the reform of these abuses and practices, 
it is not at all likely that the reform movement would 
have encountered opposition from any quarter. But 
there were other and very practical reasons why the 
conservatives should oppose it. A constitutional con- 
vention, the only means of remedying the evils com- 
plained of, was almost sure to take political power 
from the east. This section was thus confronted by 
the very practical proposition of whether or not it 
would surrender to the west, which desired greater 
revenues to construct roads and canals and to maintain 
free schools, and the power to tax the worn-out lands 
and slave property of the east. Thus the reform move- 
ment became complicated by problems of taxation, 
internal improvements, and even of negro slavery. 

Already the east was complaining of excessive taxa- 
tion. In 1829 the west drew annually for the purposes 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 486. 
<'Ibid., 486-503. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 141 

of ordinary administration more from the treasury 
than it contributed/ Efforts to equalize the burden by 
imposing a tax upon "neat cattle" had resulted in fail- 
ure. The excessive tax upon realty constituted a 
genuine grievance in the east, which paid on an arbi- 
trary valuation made in 18 17. Then the east was in 
the height of prosperity; good markets for produce 
and the prevalence of a speculative fever inflated 
values of all kinds. In consequence realty had been 
valued at very high rates. On the other hand, the 
absence of state banks and the isolation of the country 
had checked the speculative spirit in the west. Conse- 
quently values had remained stable and realty had 
been rated very low. In 1829 the average valuation 
upon which each section paid taxes was per acre: for 
the trans-Alleghany, 92 cents ; for the Valley, $7.33 ; 
for the Piedmont, $8.20; and for the Tidewater, 
$8.43.^ B. W. Leigh estimated that the east paid 
$3.24 taxes for every dollar paid by the west.^ 

But the crux of the issue was that the east pos- 
sessed a large amount of slave property, while the 
west was practically non-slaveholding. At this time 
there were east of the Blue Ridge 397,000 negro 
slaves subject to taxation and only 50,000 west thereof, 
and slave property contributed almost one-third of the 
entire state revenue. Monroe was of the opinion that, 
"if no such thing as slavery existed, the people of the 
Atlantic border would meet their brethren of the 

''Ibid., 214. 

^ Ibid., 258, 661; Richmond Enquirer, February 22, 1830. 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 153. 



142 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

west, upon the basis of a majority of the free white 
population. "^^ Madison entertained a similar opinion.^ ^ 

In 1822 the reform movement, suspended during 
the local era of good feeling, was again set in motion. 
In its first stages it met favor in all sections. In 1824 
several eastern counties, quite independently of the 
Assembly, took polls to determine the sense of the 
people upon the call of a constitutional convention 
and gave majorities for it;^^ Jefferson again came 
from his retirement to advocate reform ;^^ both 
Ritchie and Pleasants of the Richmond Enquirer and 
Whig, respectively, spoke for it; the advisability of 
reform was debated on the public square at Rich- 
mond ;^^ and petitions came from all parts of the state 
asking for a new constitution. Under this pressure 
the House of Delegates of 1824-25 passed a bill to 
take the voice of the people upon the question of call- 
ing a constitutional convention, but it was defeated in 
the more conservative Senate.^ ^ 

Unfortunately the reform movement became com- 
plicated with national politics. The conservatives 
began to oppose it on the ground that a constitutional 
convention would endanger the representation ac- 
corded slave population in the national government 
and the rights of the minority. Fewer delegates from 

^'^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 149. 
^^ Madison, Writings (ed. Cong.), IV, 60. 

^"^ Richmond Enquirer, May 16, 1824; Niles Register, XXVI, 
179. 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, April 27, 1824. 

^*Ibid., April 16, 1824; Niles Register, XXVI, 117. 
^Richmond Enquirer, February 8, 10, 1825. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 143 

the east voted for the call of a constitutional conven- 
tion in 1826 than had voted for it in 1825, and the 
opinion became current in the west that the strict 
constructionists were opposed to reform. By an analy- 
sis of the vote in the House of Delegates, by which 
the bill to submit the call of a constitutional convention 
to the people was finally agreed upon, the editor of the 
Winchester Republican showed that ninety-nine of the 
one hundred and twenty-six state-rights men in that 
body had voted against it.^*^ 

On the other hand, the reform movement fell 
more and more into the hands of those out of sympa- 
thetic touch with the political leaders of the east. The 
Staunton Convention of July, 1825, called to promote 
the call of a constitutional convention, was composed 
almost entirely of such delegates, and was representa- 
tive of the western part of the state only. Mercer had 
been the moving spirit in bringing it about, and Shef- 
fey and Breckenridge, the old Federalist leaders of 
18 16, were its most active members. It took up the 
cause of reform where the partisan leaders of 181 6 
had left off. But in addition to a resolution favoring 
an equalization of representation, it resolved that the 
privilege of suffrage should be extended to all white 
male citizens above the age of twenty-one, that the 
local and state administrations should be reformed, 
and that the membership of the /\ssembly should be 
reduced.^^ 

^^Niles Register, XXXVI, 65. 

^"^ Debates, Va, Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 420-23; 
Richmond Enquirer, August 2, 1825. 



144 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The popular vote on the call of a constitutional 
convention, taken in 1828, was: for it, 21,896, against 
it, 16,646. The map shows the geographic distri- 
bution of this vote. A comparison of this map 
with a map of the vote of the House of Delegates 
of 1828-29 upon the resolutions on the federal rela- 
tions reveals striking similarities.^^ The affirmative 
vote came chiefly from the large populous counties in 
the Valley, along the Potomac, and in the northwest. 
The democratic counties of the Piedmont foothills, 
which were slightly nationalistic, also gave majorities 
for the convention,^ ^ as did the old Federalist strong- 
hold, Accomac County. An analysis of the vote shows 
seven-eighths of the voters in the Tidewater opposed 
to it ; the Piedmont almost equally divided ; the Valley 
practically unanimous for it; and one-fourth of those 
in the trans-Alleghany opposed to it. 

Although the convention had carried by a large 
majority, it was with difficulty that the Assembly of 
1828-29 agreed to call a constitutional convention. 
The west made a determined effort to have a census 
and to base the representation in the proposed conven- 
tion upon the white population. After weeks of debate, 
in many ways a preliminary to that of the convention, 
it was decided to permit each of the twenty-four sena- 
torial districts to elect four delegates. Theoretically 
this arrangement was a concession to the reformers; 
but practically it was their defeat, because the Senate 

"See chap, iv, p. 136. 

"* The counties were Albemarle, Amherst, Campbell, Fluvanna, 
Henry, Nelson, and Pittsylvania. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 145 

was elected upon a basis of the white population as 
determined in 1810. Only qualified electors for mem- 
bers of the most numerous branch of the Assembly 
were permitted to vote, but no restriction, either as 
to the office which the candidate held or the place of 
his residence, was imposed upon the voters in their 
choice of delegates to the convention. 

The liberal provisions regulating their choice and 
the importance of the occasion caused the voters to 
appeal to the best in character and talent. Among 
those chosen as delegates were two ex-presidents, 
Madison and Monroe; the chief justice of the United 
States Supreme Court, John Marshall; Governor W. 

B. Giles; two United States senators, John Tyler and 
L. W. Tazewell; eleven representatives in Congress, 
of whom the most prominent were John Randolph, 

C. F. Mercer, P. P. Barbour, and Philip Doddridge; 
Judges Dade, Green, and Upshur; and B. W. Leigh, 
Chapman Johnson, and Lewis Summers, each favor- 
ably known at the state and federal bar.-^ In personnel 
the convention was of national reputation; from the 
east came those who had played a large part in shaping 
the Virginia school of political thought and in directing 
the affairs of the nation; while from the west came 
those who had long been buried beneath the "weight 
of their obnoxious federalism." 

As the time for the meeting of the convention 

^On the personnel of the convention see Southern Literary 
Messenger, XVII, 298 ; Grigsby, Va, Constitutional Convention of 
1829-30, in "Va. Hist. Coll.;" Niles Register, XXXVI, 285, 300, 
410. 



146 SECTIONALISM IX VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

approached, its far-reaching importance became more 
pronounced. Hezekiah Niles beheved that the effects 
of its dehberations would not be confined to Virginia 
alone. Indorsing the opinion of another writer, he 
said, "The greatest question before the Virginia con- 
vention is the perpetual duration of negro slavery or 
the increase of a generous and free white population."-^ 
The editor of the Charleston (S. C. ) Mercury looked 
with alarm upon the proposed free discussion of negro 
slavery. ^'Already," said he, "do the advocates of 
abolition rejoice even at the agitation of the subject 
and confidently predict the day of triumph." He be- 
lieved, however, that Virginia could not be suicidal to 
herself, nor traitorous to her sister states similarly 
situated. "Sectional interests may clash," said he, 
"local jealousies may jar; eastern and western Virginia 
may contend warmly and even fearfully, but we have 
no apprehension for the result."^^ It w^as at this time 
that Thomas Ritchie, of the Enquirer, found more 
frequent occasion than usual to make use of his choice 
expression, "The eyes of the world are upon us." 
Young men, embryo politicians, realized the impor- 
tance of the convention and repaired to Richmond to 
hear the debates, while distinguished strangers, foreign 
ministers, and travelers came to drink of Virginia 
eloquence on the native heath. ^^ 

"^ Niles Register, XXXVII, 145. 

^Richmond Enquirer, October 2y, 1829. 

^ T. F. Marshall, Speeches and Writings, 7 ; Grigsby, Va. Con- 
stitutional Convention of 1829-30, 5 ; Richmond Enquirer, Octo- 
ber 17, 1829. 



COXSTITUTIOXAL COXVEXTJOX. 1829-30 147 

The convention met at Richmond. October 5, 1829. 
After organization^^ four committees, composed of one 
delegate from each of the twenty-four senatorial dis- 
tricts, were appointed, one each on the Bill of Rights 
and the legislative, executive, and judicial departments 
of the government. Each committee was instructed to 
consider and report what amendments, if any, should 
be made to the particular part of the constitution of 
1776 committed to it. 

The committees on the Bill of Rights, the executive, 
and the judicial departments soon reached conclusions 
favorable to the conservatives, but that on the legis- 
lative department found greater difficulty in agreeing 
upon a report. The reformers controlled twelve of its 
twenty-four members, and the conser\^atives eleven, 
while Madison, the twentv-fourth member, refused to 
concede to the extreme demands of either side. The 
reformers, led by Doddridge, stood out for the white 
basis of representation in both houses and for a general 
extension of the suffrage. The conservatives, led by 
B. W. Leigh, favored a basis for both houses to be 
determined by a compound ratio of white population 
and direct taxes. ^ladison favored the white basis 
for one house but opposed it for both.-^"^ Accordingly 
Doddridge proposed two resolutions : one to provide 
for the white basis for the House ; the other to provide 
the same basis for the Senate. Madison's vote carried 
the first but tied the committee on the second resolu- 



^ James Monroe was made president of the convention. 
'^Richmond Enquirer^ October 15, 1829; ibid., October 22, 



1829. 



148 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

tion.2^ Accordingly the committee recommended that 
"in the apportionment of representation in the House 
of Delegates regard should be had to the white popula- 
tion exclusively," and said nothing about a basis for 
the Senate. It also recommended a reduction in the 
membership of the House of Delegates and an ex- 
tension of the suffrage."^ 

Fearing to accept the Bill of Rights as a basis for 
continuing their work, the conservatives desired to 
pass that part of the constitution by until the more 
practical parts could be agreed upon. Avowing their 
intention to begin where the framers of 1776 left off, 
the reformers favored adopting the Bill of Rights as a 
preliminary to subsequent work. Some desired to go 
even farther and to amend the declaration of 1776 by 
the addition thereto of clauses to provide for equal 
representation for all voters and for manhood suffrage. 
Robert B. Taylor, of Norfolk, made a long speech in 
favor of such an amendment. ^^ The conservatives 
prevailed, however, and the report of the committee on 
the Bill of Rights was temporarily laid on the table. 
The attitude of the most radical reformers on this 
procedure can be shown by an extract from the speech 
of Alexander Campbell, of Brooke County. 

We set sail [said he] without compass, rudder or pilot. 
So anxious were some gentlemen here to put to sea, that 
when we called for the compass and the pilot, they ex- 
claimed : "Never mind, we will get the compass and the 

^Richmond Enquirer, March 26, 1830. 

" Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 40, 

^ Ibid., 46-50. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 149 

pilot when we get to port." We are now a thousand miles 
from land. Gentlemen are making fine speeches upon the ele- 
ments of the ocean and now and then upon the art of sailing. 
It will be well, if the rari nantes in gurgite vasto apply not 
to us.* 

Immediately the committee of the whole passed to 
the consideration of that part of the report of the com- 
mittee on the legislative department, which recom- 
mended "that in the apportionment of representation 
in the House of Delegates, regard should be had to the 
white population exclusively." Judge Green moved 
to amend this report by striking out the word "exclu- 
sively" and adding in lieu thereof the words "and taxa- 
tion combined." The debate which followed involved 
questions of political theory as well as practical politics. 
Because of their subsequent importance some space 
will here be given to a discussion of the political 
theories advanced by the different sections. 

There were three clearly defined classes of political 
thinkers in the convention, viz., the reformers and the 
old and new school of conservatives. The reformers 
drew their political theories largely from the Declara- 
tion of Rights and the teachings of 1776, which, they 
contended, contained "eternal truths." Practically all 
the members of this class were favorable to the rule of 
the majority in both the state and the national govern- 
ment. They made frequent use of those parts of the 
Declaration of Rights which declare that all men are 
naturally free and independent, that they have inalien- 
able rights, that power is derived from the people, that 

"^Ibid,, 117. 



150 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

government was instituted for the common benefit, and 
that a majority of a community have a right to amend 
or aboHsh any government when it becomes inadequate 
for the purposes for which it was created. These were, 
said the reformers, the teachings of Locke and Milton 
and the products of the EngHsh struggle for liberty. 
Upon these hypotheses they defended the natural right 
of numbers to rule. The only prerequisite for the 
exercise of political power which they admitted in their 
own case was a "common interest with and attachment 
to the country," which they claimed to have shown 
repeatedly. 

The older and more numerous class of the conserv- 
atives, led by Madison, Monroe, Randolph, Tazewell, 
and Giles, were also devoted to the teachings of 1776. 
But they were strict constructionists, admirers of the 
works of the fathers, and intensely fearful of the in- 
creasing power and prominence of the west. 

The smaller class of the conservatives, and subse- 
quently the more important one, was led by young men, 
such as B. W. Leigh and Abel P. Upshur. They 
accepted the doctrines of strict construction, but were 
rapidly departing from the teachings and principles of 
1776. They had formed their conception of the proper 
relation between the states and the national government 
during the period of conflict between state rights and 
the American System and were strenuously opposed to 
nationalism. The representatives of a section which 
had become impoverished while the surrounding states 
became wealthy, they were concerned in the protection 
of minority rights and interests and, with their more 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 182^30 151 

powerful leader, Calhoun, were beginning to discredit 
the contract theory of government. They were the 
political forerunners of such men as R. M. T. Hunter, 
H. A. Wise, James A. Seddon, John Y. Mason, and 
Roger A. Pryor. The debate of the convention re- 
solved itself largely into a contest between them and 
the reformers. 

Upshur and Leigh attacked the theoretical argu- 
ments of the reformers. They each insisted that the 
constitution of 1776 was the only sane and practical 
application of Mason's Bill of Rights. They either 
repudiated as ''metaphysical subtleties" the arguments 
advanced by the reformers, or accused them of inten- 
tionally misapplying the provisions of the Declaration 
of Rights. That all men are not born equally free and 
independent, they argued, is obvious, because slaves 
are men born daily into bondage. They insisted that 
the majority did not possess the right to reform or 
abolish a government, unless such change be "most 
conducive to the public weal," a condition imposed by 
the Declaration of Rights itself, and that no such rights 
were recognized in practical government. They fre- 
quently called attention to the fact that the reformers 
omitted from their quotations from the Declaration of 
Rights that part which expressly enumerated the right 
"to acquire and possess property" as an inalienable 
right. 3^ 

The older school of conservatives differed farthest 
from Leigh and Upshur on questions of political 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 72-88, 
151-74. 



152 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

theory. But, in their practical conclusions, they did 
not differ much from the younger leaders, even on 
these subjects. Wm. B. Giles, a leader in Congress 
during the stormy days of the French Revolution, 
would not agree with Upshur that a state of nature had 
never existed, but he willingly accepted his conclusion 
that a majority did not possess a natural right to rule 
a state.^^ Although Leigh and Upshur denounced the 
Bill of Rights as a compilation of * 'metaphysical subtle- 
ties," Randolph desired to go on record "as subscrib- 
ing to every word" of it.^^ 

In defense of the rights of property to a share in 
the law-making body, Upshur insisted that it was neces- 
sary to consider two majorities, viz., a majority of 
numbers and a majority of interests. He believed that 
physical strength, intrepidity, and skill had always been 
the ruling power in states and that numbers did not 
always possess these requisites. He admitted, however, 
that in most governments power could safely be in- 
trusted to a majority of the legal voters, because they 
usually possessed identical interests. But Virginia, he 
maintained, was an exception to this general rule. 
There it became necessary for the slave-owner to pos- 
sess political power to be able to protect his "peculiar" 
property against unjust taxation and fanatical assault. ^^ 
Leigh argued that property had potential power to 
protect itself in all well-regulated governments and 
insisted that the lawmakers should acknowledge this 
practical fact by giving it representation. He believed 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 151-74. 
^^Ibid., 317. ^Ibid., 72-88. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1825^-30 153 

that it was possible, by force or fraud, to separate prop- 
erty and political power for a time, but he insisted that 
as soon as the separation was felt property would either 
purchase power or power would destroy property. Ac- 
cordingly he asked the lawmakers not to establish a 
basis of anarchy or corruption by refusing property a 
voice in the government. ^^ 

Here again the older school of conservatives dif- 
fered somewhat from their young leaders. Giles did 
not base his claim to representation for negro slaves 
alone on the fact that they were property. He claimed 
representation for them on the ground that they were 
persons with rights which the master must protect. 
The slave, he argued, cannot be put to death ; he must 
have humane treatment ; and he cannot be illegally im- 
prisoned.^^ 

Because of the representation given economic in- 
terests by the English system of government, the 
younger school of conservatives professed great ad- 
miration for that system. Leigh had "no hesitation 
in saying, in the face of the whole world, that the 
English Government is a free Government, and the 
English people a free people."^^ The conservatives 
claimed to be the only true followers of Locke and 
Milton and repeatedly insisted that the reformers were 
tainted with the principles of the French Revolution. ^''^ 
Giles believed that the combinations of the northern 
majorities to oppress the South and to deprive it of 
the rewards of its labor had caused the political ideas 

^Ihid., 156. "^Ihid., 157. 

^^Ibid., 248, 306. ^'' Ibid., 135, 157. 



154 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

of the fathers to remain dormant there and had forced 
the minority to return to the EngHsh system of 
practical governments^ John Randolph and other 
conservatives had become admirers of Burke and ex- 
ponents of his political theories. ^^ 

The reformers objected strenuously to having the 
raw head and bloody bones of the French Revolution 
passed so frequently before them.*^ But they were 
careful to remind the conservatives that the political 
upheavals in France were not due to the rule of a 
majority, but to the rule of a privileged minority. 
They also contended that, however dear the price, 
the French Revolution was a good thing in its re- 
sults because it brought a limited monarchy, a free 
press, a republican assembly, and the trial by jury.^^ 
They denied the assertions that there are no funda- 
mental principles in government and maintained 
that man's social instinct, love of country, and re- 
ligious feelings were fundamental to all govern- 
ment.^^ Alexander Campbell, of Brooke County, 
insisted that, if Upshur's argument be carried to 
a logical conclusion, it would be necessary to con- 
sider more than two majorities, a majority of numbers 
and of property. It would be necessary then to con- 
sider a majority of intellect, of physical strength, of 
scientific skill, and of general literature; interests as 

^^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, zn. 

® Garland, Randolph, I, 52, 56, 58; Goode, Speech in Va. 
Assembly 1831-32 (pamphlet), 13. 

*'^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 143, 425. 

*^ Ibid., 143. *^ Ibid., 116, 124. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 182^30 155 

important and as dear to some men as the possession of 
negro slaves was to others; interests which the slave- 
holding aristocracy had proven itself unable or unwill- 
ing to protect and encourage in the non-slaveholding 
population. He believed a Joseph Lancaster, a Robert 
Fulton, or a Benjamin Franklin worth infinitely more 
to any society than a man whose chief merit was the 
ownership of a hundred negro slaves.^^ The reformers 
also argued that property, of whatever variety, had 
intrinsic qualities which had always enabled it to pro- 
tect itself, and that added power, expressly conferred 
upon it, had always deprived individuals of their rights 
and liberties.'^"* They believed that the man who 
brought a large family of intelligent children, or the 
section which brought a large population into the social 
compact, was entitled to as much, if not more, power, 
than he who brought only property. The latter was 
perishable, the former was the hope of the society.^^ 
As the debate proceeded it became more practical, 
much time being given to a discussion of taxation. 
Taking "the exactions of the federal government and 
the state government together," Leigh doubted 
"whether there is a people on earth more heavily taxed 
than the slave-holding planters of Virginia."'*^ He 
argued that the white basis, if adopted by the conven- 
tion, would cause representation "to rise in the 
mountains and to overflow and drown the lowlands; 
while taxation rising in the lowlands, and reversing 
the course of nature, will flow to the mountains and 

*^ Ibid., 123, 124. *^ Ibid., 123. 

"^Ibid., 88, 128. "^Ibid., 154. 



156 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

there spend, if not waste, its fertilizing streams over 
every narrow valley and deep glen."^^ Upshur 
scorned the argument that the west was rapidly becom- 
ing slave holding and that it would soon possess a 
homogeneity of interest with the east. 

There exists [said he] in a great portion of the west a 
rooted antipathy to this species of population — the habits of 
the people are strongly opposed to it. With them personal 
industry, and a reliance on personal exertion is the order of 
society. They know how little slave labor is worth, while their 
feelings as free men forbid them to work by the side of a 
slave. And besides. Sir, their vicinity to non-slaveholding states 
must forever render this sort of property precarious and in- 



The reformers admitted they did not pay as much 
taxes as the conservatives, but insisted that the reason 
lay in the fact that they did not possess as much prop- 
erty. Notwithstanding the almost conclusive argu- 
ments of Upshur, they insisted that negro slavery was 
increasing in the west and that it would continue to 
do so. The laws against the domestic slave trade and 
the extension of internal improvements, they argued, 
made such an extension inevitable. In proof of their 
position they pointed to the fact that the construction 
of the Blue Ridge Canal in 1825 had carried the plan- 
tation system into Botetourt and adjacent counties and 
increased the negro slave population there. ^^ They 
also insisted that it would be impossible for political 
power, on the white basis, to pass to the west before 

"Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 155. 
*^Ibid., 76. *^Ibid., 282. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 157 

1850, by which time they predicted that the Valley 
would be thoroughly slave holding.^^ They denied the 
assertion that the internal improvement schemes were 
intended to enrich the west and impoverish the east. 
Internal improvement schemes, they argued, had been 
handed down from the fathers and promised and re- 
promised almost annually by the Assembly. It was 
frequently pointed out that the great variety of inter- 
ests made it almost impossible for two or more sections 
to combine their interests so as to oppress other sections 
by excessive taxation. ^^ 

The conservatives made a further defense of the 
rights of property to a share in the government on the 
ground that those who possessed it had never misruled 
and that in some instances their rule had been a positive 
blessing to the west. It was frequently asserted that a 
"wise and conservative minority" had spared the west 
the evils of excessive banking. On the other hand, the 
reformers believed the rule of the property classes had 
not always been "wise and benevolent." They could 
not believe that the law which exempted all persons 
who owned more than two negroes from service upon 
the public highways, and imposed such service upon 
all persons who owned less than that number was just. 
They also pointed out that the poorer whites were sub- 
ject to military duty, personal taxes, and poor levies, 
which in some counties amounted to more than the tax 
contributed by property.^^ They doubted the wisdom 
and benevolence of a policy which made all the public 

^Ihid., 209, 281. 

^^ Ibid., 286. ^^Ihid., 128-33, 201. 



158 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

expenditures for internal improvements east of the 
mountains and denied foreign capital the privilege to 
construct a railroad where it would accommodate the 
largest numbers of citizens of the west.^^ Summers, of 
Kanawha, also showed that the Assembly had not hesi- 
tated to authorize numerous branch banks east of the 
Blue Ridge, while it practically denied the west the 
privileges of banks in any form.^^ 

The conservatives also condemned the white basis 
on the ground that it would set a precedent which might 
endanger the power of Virginia in the national coun- 
cils.^^ They deemed it inexpedient to repudiate a 
principle whereby the state was entitled to one-third 
of its power in the House of Representatives. "Be 
assured," said Leigh, *'that fanatics are at work, and 
that the political power to which the possession of 
negro slaves entitles the South hangs in the balance. "^^ 
It was alleged that on a former occasion Doddridge, 
the spokesman of the west, had favored the white 
basis for representation in Congress.^'^ 

The answers to these arguments were direct. You 
ask too great security for slave property, said the re- 
formers; there is danger of making it odious in the 
sight of the west; of clothing it in the shirt of Nessus.^^ 
Greater security, they claimed, would be assured by 
admitting the white basis than by rejecting it. 

^ See chap, iv, p. 125. 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 658. 

^^Ibid., 136, 243, 250, 317. 

^ Ibid., 125, 163, 173. 

"Ibid., 135. ^^Ibid., 86, 99, 219. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 159 

Let it once be openly avowed as a principle [said Chapman 
Johnson] that the price which the western people must pay for 
the protection of your slaves, is the surrender of their power 
in the government, and you render that property hateful to 
them in the extreme, and hold out to them the strongest of 
all possible temptations to make war upon it, to render it of 
no value to you, and to induce you to part with it.°^ It will 
never do [said he] to put the people of the west under the ban 
of the Empire^ 

Gordon, of Albemarle County, was certain that no 
better security for slave property could be established 
than that which lay in ''the composed, silent, but tre- 
mendous power which resides in the free white popula- 
tion of the state; that power which defends all and 
without noise, or apparent effort, keeps all things still 
in Virginia. "^^ 

Leigh professed to believe that the convention had 
been called ''to overturn the doctrine of state rights" 
and to remove the barrier which Virginia opposed to 
works of internal improvement by the federal govern- 
ment. Such purposes, he declared, had been avowed to 
him, and he had himself noticed that when "the Federal 
Government points a road along the Valley, or along 
the foot of the Blue Ridge, or across the country at 
the head of tidewater — state rights fall or tremble at 
the very sight of the tremendous ordinance."^^ The 
answers to these arguments were not convincing. 
Johnson and IVIercer thought it unfair to introduce the 
demon of party spirit when an effort was being made 
to relay the fundamental law. Others made as feeble 

^'Ibid., 283. ^^Ibid., 141. 

"^Ibid., 283. '^Ibid., 154. 



i6o SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

efforts to show devotion to the doctrines of strict con- 
struction. 

To reconcile the east to the white basis, some re- 
formers proposed constitutional guarantees for the 
protection of slave property. Some were willing to 
make all taxes ad valorem and on a fixed ratio between 
personal and real property ;^^ while others were willing 
to accept the federal ratio for the Senate.^* The con- 
servatives spurned with contempt the proposal of "a 
paper guarantee." P. P. Barbour was unwilling to 
accept any guarantee which the west had both the in- 
terest and power to violate.^^ Upshur believed there 
could be no guarantee for the protection of slave prop- 
erty except that which came from the possession of 
political power by its owners.^^ 

After almost three weeks of discussion, Green's 
amendment^^ was defeated: ayes 47, noes 49.^^ But 
the reformers did not dare to demand a final vote on 
the report of the committee on the legislative depart- 
ment, because the basis of representation for the Senate 
and the provisions regulating suffrage had not yet 
been settled. Meanwhile the conservatives began to 
talk compromise and various plans to that end were 
proposed. ^^ 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, October 15, 22, 1829; Debates, Va, 
Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 497. 

**This proposition was defeated: ayes 43, noes 49 (ibid., 148). 

'•'Ibid,, 135. 

^^ Ibid., 177. ®^*See chap, v, p. 149. 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 321. 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, November 19, 1829. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 161 

Unable to agree upon a basis of representation, the 
committee of the whole proceeded to consider the 
proposed extension of suffrage. In behalf of a general 
extension the reformers frequently quoted from Jeffer- 
son. They also called the Declaration of Rights into 
use and made efforts to defend free white suffrage as a 
natural right. In reply the conservatives said : "We are 
not to be struck down with the authority of Mr. Jeffer- 
son."^^ Randolph denied that Jefferson was authority 
on any subject, except it be the mechanism of a plow. 
The conservatives claimed that suffrage was a conven- 
tional right and that it could be exercised only in the 
highest orders of society. Most of the arguments for 
and against an extension of suffrage were, however, 
very concrete. The reformers frequently referred to 
the fact that twenty-two of the twenty-four states had 
general suffrage and that New York and North 
Carolina permitted free negroes to vote.*^^ Nativity, 
long residence, and military service, they contended, 
were as good proofs of ''common interest with and 
attachment to the community" as the possession of real 
estate.*^^ They attributed the emigration from Vir- 
ginia to the non-participation of her citizens in govern- 
ment.'^^ Morgan, of Monongalia, argued that an 
extension of suffrage would afford greater security to 
slave property. He believed that the states of the new 
South (Alabama and Mississippi) had felt this fact and 

"'^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 557, 571, 
716. 

^"■Ibid,, 366, 379, 417. 

'^Ibid., 386. '*Ibid., 353, 374, 381. 



i62 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

tried to make the white man as free and independent as 
it was in the power of government to make him. '^The 
time is not far distant," said he, "when not only Vir- 
ginia, but all the southern states, must be essentially 
military, and will have military governments. .... 
We are going to such a state as fast as time can move. 
The youth will be taught not only in the arts and sci- 
ences but they will be trained in arms." He accord- 
ingly believed it necessary to call forth ''every free 
white human being and to unite them in the same 
common interest and government."''^ 

Many conservatives favored an extension of the 
suffrage,'^^ but Leigh, Upshur, Giles, and others feared 
that it would be followed by a transfer of political 
power to the west. Leigh classed general suffrage with 
the other plagues : the Hessian fly, the varioloid, etc., 
which had arisen in the north and later spread to the 
south, ''always keeping above the fall line in the great 
rivers. "'^^ The conservatives opposed to extension 
argued that the possession of realty furnished the only 
evidence of permanent^ common interest with and 
attachment to the country. They insisted that an ex- 
tension of suffrage had always preceded democratic 
revolution, to which they professed to believe the 
United States was then drifting.'^^ In brief, they 
voiced a protest against the Jacksonian Democracy 
which was then sweeping the country. 

''* Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 382. 

^* Marshall presented an elaborate memorial from the non- 
freeholders of Richmond in favor of an extension of suffrage 
{ibid., 26, 27, 31, 32). 

''Ibid., 407. ''Ibid., 397. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 163 

Finally the convention turned to a consideration of 
the various plans of compromise. The reformers pro- 
posed the white basis of representation for the House 
of Delegates, the federal numbers for the Senate, and a 
reapportionment on this basis every ten yearsJ^ The 
thing most desired was the white basis for the House, 
the one point which the conservatives were most un- 
willing to yield. Four other plans were placed before 
the convention. That by Gordon of Albemarle, a 
white-basis man, although unauthorized by the reform- 
ers, became the basis of the plan which was finally 
agreed upon. It ignored the basis question entirely 
and simply attempted an equitable distribution of rep- 
resentation."^^ Upshur's plan, which met with next 
favor, was based on an average of the white basis, the 
federal numbers, and the mixed basis, and had the 
advantage of recognizing a principle in the apportion- 
ments.^^ Leigh's plan was based on an average be- 
tween the white numbers and the mixed basis, while 
Marshall's plan favored a basis formed from an aver- 
age of the white population and the federal numbers, 
according to the census of 1820. After modifications, 
which raised the number of delegates to one hundred 

''^Ihid., 497. This is known as Cooke's plan. 

''^ Ibid., 455. Gordon's plan proposed a Senate of 24, 10 from 
the west and 14 from the east; and a House of 120, 26 from the 
trans- Alleghany, 24 from the Valley, 37 from the Piedmont, and 
33 from the Tidewater. This would have given the east 24 ma^ 
jority on joint ballot. 

^ Ibid., 494. Upshur's plan provided for a Senate of 30, 13 

from the west and 17 from the east; and a House of 120, 48 

from the west and 72 from the east. This plan gave the east 28 
majority on joint ballot. 



i64 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

and twenty-seven and the senators to thirty-two, 
Gordon's plan was adopted : ayes 49, noes 43.^^ 

The reformers' chief opposition to Gordon's plan 
was that it contained no basis or principle for a re- 
apportionment. They had come to the convention to 
fight for "principles," but this plan recognized none. 
They denounced it as "a mere makeshift, a temporary 
expedient," and threw out the warning that failure to 
adopt a constitutional basis would mean another con- 
vention in the near future and a continuation of sec- 
tional strife in the meantime.^^ Doddridge announced 
that he was thinking of leaving the convention; John 
Randolph had proposed a sine die adjournment; and 
there was talk of the western delegates retiring in a 
body.^^ 

Accordingly other efforts were made to agree upon 
some basis for future reapportionments. Doddridge 
favored a reapportionment after each census to be 
made, for the House, on the white basis, and for the 
Senate, on federal numbers, while Upshur insisted upon 
regular reapportionments for both houses based upon 
an average of the white population and federal num- 
bers. Another plan proposed to submit the question of 
reapportionment to a vote of the people, and still an- 
other proposed to submit the white basis alone to a 
vote of the people.^^ The committee of the whole 

^^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 574. 
Marshall voted aye, Madison and Monroe nay. Both Madison and 
Marshall favored the federal numbers (ibid., 537, 538, 573, 574). 

^^Ibid., 570, 571. 

^ Ibid., 492, 570-72. ^Ibid., 570, 573-75. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 165 

finally agreed upon Upshur's plan of reapportionment, 
which with Gordon's plan was submitted to a vote in 
the convention. Gordon's plan was adopted, ayes 50, 
noes 46, but the plan for a reapportionment was so 
thoroughly distasteful to the reformers that its advo- 
cates did not dare to push it. 

The adoption of Gordon's plan sounded the death 
knell to the white basis of representation. A combina- 
tion of circumstances had operated to bring about its 
defeat. Discussion in the convention had been followed 
by a democratic reaction in those parts of the east fa- 
vorable to reform. By instructions the voters of the 
Norfolk district compelled Robert B. Taylor, the only 
delegate from the Tidewater favorable to reform, to 
leave the convention, and they replaced him by a 
conservative, Hugh Blair Grigsby. Both Madison and 
Marshall, at first regarded as neutral, gradually became 
more favorable to the conservatives,^^ who, following 
the introduction of Gordon's plan, had swamped the 
convention with other and similar plans until an im- 
pression had been created that compromise was inevi- 
table. Besides, Gordon's plan was very attractive to the 
delegates of the large and populous counties of the 
Piedmont foothills and the Valley, which sections had 
led in the movement for reform. It gave to most of 
the counties of these sections two delegates and to some 
three,^^ whereas only a few counties in the other sec- 
tions received more than one delegate each in the 
House. 

*° Monroe had left the convention because of ill-health. 
^ Shenandoah, Frederick, and Loudoun counties received three 
delegates each. 



i66 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

But the cause which contributed most to the defeat 
of the white basis was the disloyalty, approaching 
treason, which manifested itself in the ranks of the 
reformers. Cooke, of Frederick County, and Hender- 
son, of Loudoun County, both representatives of 
counties which would profit largely by Gordon's com- 
promise, secretly agreed to support it and then went 
into caucus with those favorable to the white basis. On 
the nomination of Henderson, Cooke was elected to 
represent the white-basis men in their conferences with 
the conservatives.^^ That he did not push their claims 
as Doddridge would have done is evident. 

Talk of dismemberment characterized many debates 
in the convention. In the first stages of the debate, 
before the Gordon compromise had been agreed upon, 
the eastern delegates indulged most freely in such ex- 
pressions. The preservation of the commonwealth 
was only the second wish to Leigh's heart,^^ and 
Morris, of Hanover County, said that an emancipation 
act or a heavy tax upon negro slaves "would cause a 
sword to be unsheathed which would be red with blood 
before it found the scabbard. "^^ Monroe thought the 
dismemberment of Virginia would be followed by the 
dismemberment of both Georgia and South Carolina,^^ 
and W. B. Giles said : 'The forceful separation of Vir- 
ginia must and will lead to the separation of the United 
States, come when it will." He also added ''that in 

^'^ Doddridge, circular letter in Richmond Enquirer, March 26, 
1830. See also ibid., April 2, 1830. 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 182^-30, 164. 

"^Ibid., 116. ''"Ibid., 148. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1825^30 167 

the event of disunion among ourselves, the future 
destinies of the United States must be determined by 
the physical force of foreign nations. "^^ 

In turn the western delegates and their constituents 
were even more emphatic in their talk of dismember- 
ment than the conservatives had been. Citizens of 
Wheeling held a mass-meeting at which resolutions 
were adopted calling upon the western delegates to 
secede in case the convention rejected the white basis.^^ 
At Harrisonburg, Rockingham County, the effigy of 
B. W. Leigh and a copy of his speech made in the con- 
vention were burned together in the public square.^^ 
There are few issues of the Richmond Enquirer for 
the month of December, 1829, which do not discuss 
the probabilities of the western delegates retiring from 
the convention to make a constitution of their own.^* 
Later Doddridge acknowledged that they had contem- 
plated such a course.^^ Baldwin of Augusta believed 
that a successful attempt to force representation for 
slave property would result in dismemberment, and 
Moore of Rockbridge assured the conservatives that 
the west had been settled by the Wallaces, Graemes, 
and Douglasses, and that if the struggle came to Ban- 
nockburn, they would all be there and old Kirkpatrick 
among the rest.^^ 

^ Ibid., 254. 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, December 25, 1829. 

'>^ Miles Register, XXXVII, 225. 

®* See also Richmond Enquirer, January 16, 1830. 

^'^ Ibid., March 26, 1830; ibid., April 2, 1830. 

^Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 542. 



l68 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

After the adoption of Gordon's plan of compromise, 
the conservatives retained practical control of the con- 
vention. The reformers made a desperate effort to 
extend the franchise to all taxpayers, but were not 
successful ; a resolution for that purpose was defeated 
by the close vote : ayes 44, noes 48.^^ Suffrage was 
extended, however, to leaseholders and house-keepers, 
but the number of men of legal age, w^ho remained ex- 
cluded, amounted to more than thirty thousand. 

The central executive power was vested in a gov- 
ernor to be elected for a temi of three years by joint 
ballot of the Assembly. He was given greater power 
than former executives, but the Executive Council was 
retained, although reduced in membership. The vote 
on Doddridge's resolution to elect the governor by 
popular vote was a tie and was decided in the negative 
by the chairman.^^ 

The judicial power was vested in a Supreme Court 
of Appeals, such inferior courts as the Assembly might 
from; time to time establish, the county courts, and the 
justices of the peace. The judges of the higher courts 
were made elective by joint ballot of the Assembly, but 
the justices of the peace, who held the county and 
justice courts, remained appointive by the executive. 
Marshall's influence was exerted in behalf of the main- 
tenance of the established judicial system. ''There is 
no state in the Union," he argued, ''which enjoys more 
internal quiet than Virginia;" a condition which he 

^^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 441. 
^Ibid., 485. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 169 

attributed ''to the practical operation of the county 
courts."^^ 

The last sectional conflict in the convention was 
occasioned by a renewed effort tO' adopt some constitu- 
tutional basis for future reapportionments of repre- 
sentation. The west insisted upon the white basis, but 
finally agreed to accept the white basis for the House 
of Delegates and the federal numbers for the Senate to 
take effect after 1840.^'^*^ Finally Madison proposed 
that the 

General Assembly, after the year 1841 and at intervals there- 
after of not less than ten years, should have authority, two- 
thirds of each house concurring, to make re-apportionments of 
delegates and senators throughout the commonwealth so that 
the number of delegates shall not at any time exceed one hun- 
dred and fifty, nor of senators thirty-six."'^ 

Notwithstanding the bitter opposition of the reformers 
this provision became a part of the constitution. ^^^ 

Thus with the chief issue between the east and the 
west unsatisfactorily settled and with no provision in 
the new constitution for amendments, the question, 
"Shall this constitution pass ?" was put. The vote was : 
ayes 55, noes 40.^^^ Cooke of Frederick was the only 

^ Ibid., 505. 

^^Ibid., 681. ^"^Ibid., 849, 854. 

^-- The plan of representation finally agreed upon provided for 
a House of 134 delegates and a Senate of 32 members. The 
trans- Alleghany was given 31 delegates; the Valley 25; the Pied- 
mont 42 ; and the Tidewater s^. The counties west of the Blue 
Ridge were to have 13 senators; the east 19. The apportionment 
was practically upon the basis of the white population according 
to the census of 1820. 

^'^^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 882. 



170 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

member from west of the Blue Ridge who voted aye. 
Thirty-nine of the forty votes in the negative came 
from counties west of the Bkie Ridge and from the 
Piedmont foothills. The other vote was given by 
Stanard, who represented a district located in the 
northeastern part of the state and composed of coun- 
ties lying both in the Piedmont and the Tidewater.^^* 

The constitution of 1830 did not settle the differ- 
ences between the east and the west. It simply 
transferred the center of discontent and reform from 
the large populous counties of northern Piedmont and 
the Shenandoah Valley to the trans-Alleghany. 
Henceforth sectionalism was more largely a contest 
between the areas which are now Virginia and West 
Virginia. 

The trans-Alleghany went into the reform move- 
ment of the '20's with few grievances; it came out 
deserted by its allies, robbed of political power, and 
shackled in its efforts to obtain redress. Its delegates 
had not long retired to their homes before echoes of 
discontent began to resound through the mountain 
valleys and occasionally to reach the lowlands. The 
inhabitants were determined to defeat the ratification 
of the new constitution when it should be submitted to 
a vote of the people. A writer in the Wheeling Gazette 
suggested that "the west call a convention of the 
west" and that commissioners be appointed "to treat 
with the eastern nabobs for a division of the state — 

^°* Doddridge was not present when the vote on the adoption 
of the constitution was taken. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 171 

peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must."^^^ Citizens 
of Ohio County resolved, "That a constitution char- 
acterized by and composed of such ingredients is unfit 
for the government of a free people. "^^^ An editorial 
comment in the Wheeling Compiler said : 

Should the victory turn out in favor of our opponents, the 
declared enemies of equal rights and practical republicanism, 
we still have, provided the entire west will move unanimously 
with the counties in this section of the state, one chance left, 
and that is Separation. This will not prove an impractical 
matter. If the people of the west will it, it is effective.^*" 

While the west was tense with excitement over the 
ratification of the new constitution, Doddridge, now a 
member of Congress from northwestern Virginia, sent 
his famous circular letter^^^ to the western counties. 
In it he laid before the people his version of how 
Cooke and Henderson had betrayed the west into the 
hands of the eastern aristocracy, and did not spare 
the venerable Madison the opprobium of his cutting 
epithets. He narrated the part which the trans- 
Alleghany had in bringing the convention about and 
the story of its betrayal, and concluded that the price 
she must now pay for it all is "the unconditional sur- 
render of ourselves and our posterity to practical 
vassalage under the yoke of an eastern oligarchy." 
The effort to defeat ratification was unsuccessful. 



^'^ Wheeling Gazette, Ap.ril 6, 1830. 
^'^ Ibid., March 12, 1830. 



^^ Compiler, March 10, 1830. 

^^^ Richmond Enquirer, March 23, 1830; ibid,, March 26, 1830; 
ibid., April 2, 1830. 



172 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The total vote was: for ratification, 26,055, ^o^ rejec- 
tion, 15,566. The accompanying map of the vote by 
counties on ratification shows every county east of the 
Bkie Ridge for it, except Warwick and Lancaster. 
These were small counties which had been combined 
with other counties to constitute delegate districts. In 
most cases the minority vote in the eastern counties 
was insignificant. Madison County gave no vote for 
rejection and 256 for ratification. The largest votes 
for ratification came from the counties of northern 
and western Piedmont and of the Shenandoah Valley. 
But two of the twenty-six counties in the trans- Alle- 
ghany gave majorities for ratification. These counties 
were Washington and Lee, each located in the extreme 
southwestern part of the state and more or less 
interested in negro slavery. ^'^^ Most of the trans- 
Alleghany counties gave insignificant minorities for 
ratification. Out of a total vote of 646, Ohio County 
gave only 3 votes for ratification. Brooke County, the 
home of Campbell and Doddridge, gave no vote for 
ratification, and Harrison gave only 8 for it in a total 
vote of 1,128.1^'^ 

Although the new constitution was ratified by more 
than ten thousand majority, the trans- Alleghany people 
would not be reconciled to it, and continued to talk 
dismemberment. During the autumn of 1830 a series 
of essays, favoring the formation of a new state west 
of the mountains, appeared in many of the western 

^"^ Many negroes were employed in the salt works in Washing- 
ton County. 

^'^^ Debates, Va. Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, 903. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1829-30 173 

prints over the signature, "Senex.''^^^ The writer of 
these articles took the position that nothing but dis- 
memberment could bring relief to the west. He 
believed that future reforms were practically impossible 
and that western Virginia had the natural resources 
which would enable it to become a self-sufficing and 
prosperous commonwealth. On October i, 1830, the 
citizens of Wheeling called a mass-meeting to consider 
the expediency of taking measures to annex north- 
western Virginia to Maryland.^^^ They contemplated 
adding that part of Virginia's territory which lay 
north of a straight line from the southwestern corner 
of Maryland to the mouth of the Little Kanawha 
River. Speaking of this move, the Winchester Re- 
publican said : 

We are not at all surprised and are prepared to see it per- 
sisted in until it is crowned with success. In politics there is 
an utter contrariety of sentiment between the people of these 
counties and their eastern brethren, while with their neighbors 
of Maryland they harmonize exactly. Were the cession to take 
place, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad would unquestionably 
extend to Parkersburg or some point on the Ohio near that 
place.^' 

It was not "as patriots of Virginia" but "as patriots 
of America" that the editors of the Wheeling Compiler 
favored dismemberment.^ ^^ 

The following extract from the Winchester Re- 

"^ See Kanawha Banner, September 17, 1830; ibid., October 
I, 1830; ibid., October 8, 1830. 

^^Ibid., October 29, 1830. 

^^ Winchester Republican, October 15, 1830. 

'^*' Kanawha Banner, November 15, 1830. 



174 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

publican^'^^ shows the change of attitude which the 
Valley was assuming toward the trans-Alleghany 
country after the constitutional convention of 1829-30, 
and it also afforded a clue to the various schemes of 
dismemberment which were on foot in Virginia at the 
time it was written : 

The Virginia Legislature will convene on Monday. To the 
proceedings of this lx)dy we look with intense interest. Mat- 
ters of great moment will come before it, and the discussions 
will be as interesting as those of the late convention. The 
preservation of the state we believe will depend upon this 
Legislature. Dispute the claims of the Trans-Alleghany counties 
to what they may deem a proper share of the fund for inter- 
nal improvements and a division of the state must follow — 
not immediately perhaps, but the signal will be given for the 
rising of the clans, and they will rise. It is not worth while 
now to speculate on the mode and manner in which the gov- 
ernment will be opposed. Sufficient unto the day is the evil 
thereof. But a crisis is approaching. The northern counties 
demand to be separated from the state with a view of attach- 
ing themselves to Maryland or Pennsylvania; the southwest 
counties go for a division of the state into two commonwealths. 
Should the latter be effected, what will be our condition in the 
Valley? Infinitely worse than the present. The mere depend- 
ency of a government whose interest and whose trade would 
all go westward, we would be taxed without receiving any 
equivalent; and instead of being chastened with whips, we 
should be scourged with scorpions. Of the two projects spoken 
of, that which would be least injurious to the Valley and the 
state at large, would be to part with the northwestern counties. 
Let them go. Let us get clear of this disaffected population. 
Then prosecute the improvements called for in the southwest, 
and that portion of our state, deprived of its northern allies, 
would give up its desire for a separation. 

"''December 3, 1830; see also the Kanawha Banner, Decem- 
ber 17, 1830. 



CHAPTER VI 

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, NEGRO SLAVERY, AND 
NULLIFICATION, 1829-33 

The internal improvement schemes urged by advo- 
cates of the American System and the railways in 
process of construction westward from Baltimore 
were the important factors in shaping the internal im- 
provement policies in Virginia during this period. 
Her legislators yet believed it possible to make Rich- 
mond a commercial rival of Baltimore, Philadelphia, 
and New York. Accordingly they again sought to 
revive interest in the proposed water communication 
between the James and the Kanawha rivers and took 
every precaution to prevent the west from becoming 
tributary to Baltimore by means of either the railway 
or canal. 

During the first years of this period the chief dis- 
cussion, especially in the west, was to determine the 
policy of the Jackson administration on the subject of 
internal improvements. The constitutional convention 
of 1829-30 taught the west to expect little of the east 
in the way of roads and canals. Its inhabitants, there- 
fore, hoped for a continuation of the Adams policy, 
which Jackson's inaugural address and first message 
had led them to believe might be adhered to. 

The proposed Buffalo and New Orleans turnpike, 
to be built by way of Washington, thence through the 
Valley, aroused keen interest in western Virginia. The 

17s 



176 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

representatives from that section argued for it on the 
ground that it was necessary to promote the general 
welfare,^ and to comply with the provisions of a con- 
tract between the federal government and Alabama 
and Mississippi, whereby the former had agreed to use 
a portion of the proceeds of the land sales within 
those states to construct works of internal improve- 
ment.- Craig favored using the proceeds of the sales 
of the public lands upon works of internal improve- 
ment as the only means whereby they could be returned 
to the people. Another argument advanced by these 
representatives was that the proposed road would 
expedite the transfer of the mails, and afford an easy 
and necessary means of communication in time of war. 
Archer, P. P. Barbour, and Bouldin spoke for the 
east in opposition to the proposed road. Barbour in- 
sisted that the circumstances surrounding the construc- 
tion of the Cumberland turnpike, deemed necessary to 
comply with a contract between the federal govern- 
ment and Ohio, were not identical with those advanced 
in behalf of the Buffalo and New Orleans turnpike; in 
the former case Ohio had demanded the road, while in 
the latter both Alabama and Mississippi were opposed 
to it. He professed to see in the proposed undertaking 
the beginning of appropriations designed to continue 
the national debt and the obnoxious tariff.^ In reply 

^ The chief market for the Valley, even to the Tennessee line, 
was Baltimore (Seward, Seward, I, 268). 

'^Register of Cong. Debates, 21 Cong., ist sess., VI, Part II, 
674, 696, 711. 

^Ibid., 696, 739, 743, 772. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 177 

to the inquiry which Archer said had been repeatedly 
put to him, namely: "Will Virginia nullify the law 
providing for the road?" he answered, invariably and 
promptly, "no !" for that would be to "refuse obedience 
to the laws of the Union." He insisted, however, that 
the proposed road was unnecessary, unconstitutional, 
and bad precedent.^ 

The importance and uncertainty of the sectional 
conflict then on in the state was attested by the frequent 
references made to it, in the course of this debate, by 
speakers other than Virginians, Some believed the 
proposed road necessary to prevent the dismemberment 
of Virginia and possibly of the Union. ^ Irwin of 
Ohio, a native Virginian, believed that "the signs of 
the times" pointed to a revolution in the Old Dominion, 
and that the day was not distant when she would con- 
cede all that the friends of internal improvements 
desired and regard C. F, Mercer as her greatest bene- 
factor.^ 

The bill to provide for the Buffalo and New 
Orleans turnpike was defeated on engrossment for a 
third reading: ayes 88, noes 105. The representatives 
of trans-Alleghany Virginia voted aye, as did Craig of 
the Valley and Mercer of the Loudoun district."^ The 
bill was finally laid on the table in order to take up 
instead the bill to appropriate money to the Maysville, 
Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Com- 
pany. 

Jackson's veto of the Maysville appropriation and 

*Ibid., 745. ^Ibid., 670, 742. ^ Ibid., 727. 

'' Smith, of the Valley, spoke for the bill but did not vote. 



178 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

his subsequent pocket veto of the appropriation to the 
Portland Canal Company^ did not materially lessen 
his popularity in western Virginia. To be sure, the 
pocket veto did provoke criticism in the counties along 
the Ohio and the Great Kanawha, but these were 
largely National Republican. On the other hand, the 
action of the House in tabling the Buffalo and New 
Orleans turnpike bill relieved Jackson of the necessity 
of expressing himself on the subject. The inhabitants 
of the Valley and the Piedmont foothills had therefore 
little grievance against the president. They continued 
to insist that their schemes were national in character 
and to attribute the responsibility for their defeat to 
the strict construction leaders of the east and the 
lower south. Their devotion to nationalism and loy- 
alty to Jackson thus continued. 

The attitude of Jackson made it clear, however, 
that local schemes of internal improvement could not 
expect federal aid, and already those interested in 
such schemes had turned to the state. The Assembly 
of 1829-30 was flooded by the west with petitions 
asking the incorporation of internal improvement 
companies and appropriations thereto. From the 
Kanawha Valley they requested a public highway to 
the mouth of the Big Sandy, while those from the 
north and northwest were for the incorporation of 
turnpike companies. Many of these petitions requested 
permission to institute lotteries to promote internal 
improvements.^ 

* This was the company which constructed the canal around 
the falls at Louisville, Kentucky. 

^Journal, House of Del., 1829-30, 13, 15, 47, 48. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 179 

Meanwhile the railway daily became a greater 
factor in transportation. The west readily accepted it 
as the only practical solution of its difficult problems, 
but the east clung to the canal. During these years the 
merits of railways and canals were subjects of much 
discussion. Although opposed to the Chesapeake and 
Ohio Canal on general principles, the Richmond press 
borrowed the arguments advanced in its favor and 
applied them to promote the James River and Kanawha 
Canal. The westerners were equally loud in praise 
of the railway. The Winchester Republican believed 
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad had already greatly 
enhanced the value of property along the Potomac and 
confidently predicted greater prosperity due to its 
influence.^^ In 183 1 Winchester, a very small place, 
subscribed $40,000 to be used in constructing a lateral 
road to the Baltimore and Ohio. About the same time 
Lynchburg subscribed $300,000 to be used to construct 
a railroad between the James and New rivers.^ ^ The 
hope had not yet vanished in the west that the Balti- 
more and Ohio Company would eventually be per- 
mitted to construct its lines through the Valley, thence 
to the Ohio by way of the Great Kanawha. Some 
expected to see the company construct its lines from 
Baltimore to Harper's Ferry and from Louisville to 
the southwestern boundary of the state. Under these 
circumstances it was deemed impossible longer to de- 
prive it of permission to cross central Virginia.^ ^ 

^° Niles Register, XL, 59. 

^ Ibid., XL, 59; National Intelligencer, November 23, 1831. 

^Kanawha Banner, August 26, 1831, 



i8o SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Ere long the east admitted the practical utility of 
railroads. Accordingly the Assembly of 1830-31 
incorporated a number of railway companies,^ ^ but the 
acts of incorporation were determined largely by sec- 
tional interest. Delegates from the Great Kanawha 
Valley made a desperate effort to amend the act in- 
corporating the Staunton and Potomac Company, so 
as to permit it to extend its proposed lines westward 
from Staunton by way of the Great Kanawha to the 
Ohio River. Summers' amendment to this act aroused 
great alarm in the east, which feared that the act of 
1827, restricting the Baltimore and Ohio Company to 
the northwestern part of the state, would thereby be 
rendered null. The conservatives believed that the 
Baltimore and Ohio Company was back of the Staun- 
ton and Potomac Company and that it intended to 
purchase its rights and interests.^ "^ Accordingly the 
amendment was defeated by a sectional vote : ayes 53, 
noes 58.^^ Another blow was given nationalism and 
the Baltimore interests, which then expected federal 
aid, by so amending the act of incorporation of the 
Staunton and Potomac Company as to render void all 
its privileges in case it ever received aid from the 
federal government.^ ^ 

" The companies incorporated were the Staunton and Potomac, 
the Winchester and Potomac, the Loudoun, the Petersburg, and 
the Lynchburg and New River (Acts of 1830-31, 167-205; Niles 
Register, XL, 91 ; Richmond Enquirer, March 21, 1831). 

^*' Kanawha Banner, July 15, 1831 ; Richmond Enquirer, March 
15, 1831 ; Niles Register, XL, 58. 

^^ Journal, House of Del., 1830-31, 249. 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, March 15, 1831 ; Niles Register, XL, 
58; Kanawha Banner, March 25, 1831. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION i8i 

By a combination of interests the same Assembly 
incorporated the Lynchburg and New River Railroad 
Company.^ ^ Should the railroad prove more prac- 
ticable the east hoped to divert the trade of the west 
from the New York and Pennsylvania routes to the 
Great Kanawha and New River route, thence to the 
James. The delegates from the southwest favored this 
scheme because it contemplated a lateral line to the 
Tennessee boundary. It also met favor from the 
delegates from the southern Piedmont and the counties 
about Norfolk, because they expected to see the pro- 
posed line extended to the coast by way of Petersburg 
and Norfolk. 

The Assembly of 1830-31 ended its work by re- 
jecting a bill to appropriate two million dollars in- 
tended to aid the companies it had incorporated and 
internal improvements in general. Because of the 
scarcity of private capital in the west this defeat was 
a death blow to the Lynchburg and New River and 
the Staunton and Potomac railway companies. By an 
analysis of the vote on this appropriation bill the editor 
of the Kanawha Banner showed that the counties west 
of the Blue Ridge cast only seven votes against it.^^ 
Commenting upon the defeat of the proposed appro- 
priation and Mr. Summers' efforts in its behalf Niles 
said : ''Had the people adopted his views years ago we 
have no doubt that the real and personal property of 
Virginia would now have been worth 200 millions 

^^Acts of 1830-31, 167, 177. 

^^ Kanawha Banner, March 25, 1831. 



i82 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

more than it is and her population 300,000 freemen 
more."^^ 

This unsuccessful beginning did not end the early 
attempts at railroad construction in Virginia. During 
a large part of the year 183 1 Benjamin Wright, a 
skilled engineer of New York, assisted the state 
engineer in making surveys to determine the relative 
merits of railways and canals as a means of continuing 
the James and Kanawha improvements. The conflict- 
ing report of the two engineers added new perplexities 
to the situation. One favored a canal from Richmond 
to the mountains and a railroad thence to the Ohio ; the 
other a continuous railroad. ^^ 

The Assembly of 1831-32 was thus placed in an 
embarrassing position. Some of its members desired 
a railroad as the most suitable method to continue the 
James and Kanawha improvements; others a canal; 
and still others clung to the sluice and dam navigation 
and the use of the steamboat. A compromise was 
effected whereby the state surrendered its interest in 
the James River Canal Company and its right to su- 
perintend the work to a joint stock company, the James 
River and Kanawha Company,^^ which was em- 

^^Niles Register, XL, 58. 

'^Journal, House of Del., 1831-32, 11; Report of the Com. on 
Roads and Int. Imp. (1831-32), 36. This report gives one of the 
best reviews to be found of the internal improvement history of 
Virginia prior to 1832. 

^The James River and Kanawha Company, commonly called 
the "J. R. and K. Co.," superseded the old James River Com- 
pany. It had an authorized capital of $5,000,000, of which the 
state took $2,000,000, one-half of which was to be paid by a 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 183 

powered to continue the work to the Ohio by either a 
railroad or a canal, or a combination of both. At the 
same time a number of railway companies, restricted, 
however, to the east, were incorporated to construct 
lateral lines to the proposed central line of improve- 
ments.^^ 

This programme did not pass, however, without 
sectional opposition. The act incorporating the James 
River and Kanawha Company received 37 negative to 
75 affirmative votes. -^ Delegates from counties along 
the proposed route of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail- 
road and the Lynchburg and New River Railroad, 
through southern Piedmont, voted against it. At the 
same time the most enthusiastic supporters of the new 
company, who came largely from counties along the 
Kanawha and between the headwaters of the Kanawha 
and the James, tried to place the construction and the 
expense of the work upon the state. A resolution to 
this effect was defeated: ayes 57, noes 6y. On the 
other hand, those interested in the extension of the 
Staunton and Potomac Railway to the Ohio made a 
renewed fight for that privilege. ^^ 

transfer of the state's interest in the James River Company, and 
the remaining half in cash when three-fifths of the capital stock 
had been subscribed by individuals and corporations (Acts of 
1831-32, 73-87). 

^^ The railroad companies incorporated at this time were the 
Richmond and Turkey Island, the Richmond, the Richmond and 
Yorktown, the Portsmouth and Roanoke, the Fredericksburg and 
Potomac, and the Leesburg (Acts of 1831-32, 1 12-61). 

^Journal, House of Del., 1831-32, 225. 

^Ibid., 22^, 



i84 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The James River and Kanawha Company encoun- 
tered other and more material difficulties, which post- 
poned the commencement of its work for several years. 
At this time there was not enough capital at the com- 
mand of individuals residing in the east to promote 
such an undertaking, and the banks of the eastern 
cities, remote from the proposed central line of im- 
provement, refused to contribute to a scheme which 
would make Richmond more powerful commercially.^^ 
Thus the question of banking again became compli- 
cated with that of internal improvements, and the west 
had occasion to renew its demands for state banks 
and to oppose any further increase in the banking 
capital or the number of banks in the east. 

Meanwhile the management of the Chesapeake and 
Ohio Canal Company had incurred the displeasure of 
the federal administration, an incident which attracted 
much attention in Virginia and elsewhere. As presi- 
dent of the company and representative of the internal 
improvement interests of his section, C. F. Mercer had 
become very popular along the Potomac, the strong- 
hold of National Republicanism. Because of his anti- 
administration sentiments Jackson resolved to remove 
him from the presidency of the company. Accord- 
ingly he prepared charges against him and openly 
asserted that, in case of his re-election, he would veto 
any and all appropriations to the Chesapeake and Ohio 
Company. When the election came off Major Eaton 
superseded Mercer by the votes which the federal 

^ Lyyrchhurg Virginian, May 6, 1833; Niles Register, XLIV, 
258; see also Lynchburg Virginian, June 3 and 27, 1833. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 185 

government owned and controlled.-^ Thus the com- 
pany was deprived of Mercer's wise counsel and per- 
sonal influence and soon ceased to receive federal aid. 

Discussions in the constitutional convention of 1829 
-30 and the abolition agitation caused the question of 
negro slavery to assume an alarming sectional aspect 
in this period. Prior to 1829 the sentiments and 
theories of 1776 and religious enthusiasm did much 
to ameliorate the condition of those in bondage. But 
during this period portions of the east began to defend 
negro slavery as a divinely sanctioned institution and 
as the only practical means of dealing with an inferior 
race. Planters began to oppose emancipations and to 
assume an unfriendly attitude toward those who fa- 
vored them. For the public good they deemed it neces- 
sary to restrict the liberties of the slave and even of 
the free colored population. On the other hand, the 
inhabitants of the west clung to the theories and senti- 
ments which had formerly made emancipation popular. 
They became more grounded in the conviction that 
slavery was an economic evil, and consequently con- 
tinued to favor gradual emancipation and deportation. 
There were, however, few abolitionists of the Garrison 
type among them, but the abolition doctrines of Jeffer- 
son and Madison continued to be popular. 

The divergence of view between the east and the 

-^Mercer received 3.740 votes; Eaton 5,054. Of the votes 
given Eaton 2,008 were cast by the secretary of the treasury and 
2,008 by the corporation of Washington. Mercer's vote was largely 
from the individual stockholders (National Intelligencer, May 22, 
1833 ; ibid., June 6 and 8, 1833). 



i86 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177&-1861 

west on the subject of negro slavery resulted largely 
from economic causes. Of the slavery debate in the 
Assembly of 1831-32 James McDowell said: "This is 
not a debate involving the first and leading principles 
of the Republic, nor a question relating to abstract 
principles of morality. It is a question of self-interest 
on the one hand and self-preservation on the other. "^"^ 
By 1830 the Kanawha Valley counties and the south- 
west had acquired practically as many negroes as was 
needed to perform the manual labor in connection with 
salt working. Thus there was no economic demand 
for them in the west. Outstripped in the race for 
material gain by the new states to the north and west 
of them and firm in the belief that negro slavery was 
causing the impoverishment of the east, the westerners 
began to attribute their lack of prosperity to their 
proximity to the slave-holding portion of the state. 
They began to indulge in statistical comparisons 
wherein the numerical and material strength of Vir- 
ginia was contrasted with that of the free states. Con- 
clusions like those found in Helper's Impending Crisis 
were the invariable results. The belief became current 
that the natural resources of the west would attract 
capital and population thither, if the objectionable 
negroes were removed. 

On the other hand, the slave-holders became stand- 
patters. Loria's proposition that slavery is never 
voluntarily abolished so long as slaves are over- 
valued^^ never found a truer confirmation than in 

^^ Pamphlet, speech of James McDowell (1831-32), 5. 
^^ La Constitutione Economic Adicrno, 779. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 187 

Virginia during the years following 1830. The do- 
mestic slave trade; improved methods of agriculture 
produced by the agricultural societies and by the 
scientific experiments of Edmund Ruffin and others ;^^ 
better means of intercommunication, the railroad and 
the canal; and the employment given negro slaves 
upon works of internal improvement and in factories 
revived the economic interest in negro slaves in the 
east. The domestic slave trade provided capital, and 
the scientific agriculture and improved means of com- 
munication were restoring the worn-out lands and 
bringing into use uncultivated areas. 

Many attributed the rise in prices and the marked 
increased interest in negro slaves to the ravages of 
the cholera, but a planter denied that this had a telling 
effect and offered the following explanation : 

The price has gradually been increasing for several years 
and is known to be caused mainly by the increased demand in 
the South for that description of negroes which form the 
efficient labor of the country, say males from twelve to eighteen. 
Such immense numbers within these ages have within a few 
years been bought up for the southern markets, that there is 
now but few of that description for sale, hence the enormous 
price now given for even common field hands. Besides which 
Virginia has, within a few years, entered largely into the spirit 
of internal improvements and not a little into domestic manu- 
facturing — all which increase the demand for labor, and the 
blacks being better accommodated, are preferable. Men that 
a few years since hired out by the year for from 35 to 40 
dollars now hire readily at from 60 to 70. The tobacco fac- 
tories in Richmond and Manchester alone, I presume, will give 
employment to from one to two thousand men and boys and 

'^Lynchburg Virginian, August 20, 1832. 



i88 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the coal pits to nearly or quite as many more. All these 
causes draw from the agriculturist his most efficient labor.^*^ 

About the same time another planter wrote : 

We have never known of negroes selling or hiring out at 
so high a price as they do at present. We have heard of a 
carpenter selling at $1,200; a boy of fourteen selling at $400. 
Negroes hire also at very high rates. Is it because produce is 
selling so high .... or because hands are also wanting for 
tobacco factories, for internal improvements — for the settle- 
ment of new farms — for slaves to supply the place of those 
who have died of the cholera P"*^ 

The Nat Turner insurrection brought a movement 
on the part of the east to secure itself against similar 
outbreaks and on the part of the west to rid the state 
of the evils of slavery. Governor Floyd, who sympa- 
thized with the east, attributed the causes of the in- 
surrection to the influence of "unrestricted fanatics" 
from the neighboring states and to the work of negro 
preachers. He recommended that the legislature 
silence the latter, that it enact laws to keep the negro 
slaves in subordination, and that measures be taken 
for the removal of the free people of color from the 
commonwealth.^^ 

Meanwhile the people, in their public meetings and 
through their prints, had broken the long silence upon 
the question of disestablishing slavery. Their activity 
called forth numerous petitions, memorials, and reso- 
lutions on this subject. These may be divided into 

^National Intelligencer, January 19, 1833. 
^^ Richmond Compiler, January 14, 1833. 
^Journal, House of Del,, 1831-32, 5-14. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 189 

three classes : ( i ) those asking for the removal of the 
free people of color from the state; (2) those asking- 
an amendment to the federal Constitution to give 
Congress power to appropriate money to purchase 
negro slaves and transport the colored population from 
the United States; (3) those urging the state to devise 
some scheme for gradual emancipation. The first 
class of petitions was obviously opposed to any and 
all forms of emancipation and desired the removal of 
the free people of color to make the possession of slave 
property less precarious. They came only from the 
counties of the Tidewater and the Piedmont. The 
second and third classes came chiefly from, the Valley 
and the counties of the Piedmont foothills. ^^ A 
memorial from Augusta County, signed by three hun- 
dred and forty-three women, asked the immediate 
abolition of slavery. A mass-meeting in Loudoun 
resolved. 

That a gradual emancipation and removal of the slaves of the 
Commonwealth is practicable and, upon that assumption, the 
continuation of slavery is forbidden by the true policy of Vir- 
ginia, repugnant to her political theory and christian profes- 
sions ; and an opprobrium to our ancient and renowned Do- 
minion." ** 

These various memorials, petitions, and resolutions 
were referred to a select' committee composed of 
twenty-one members, of whom sixteen were from 
counties east of the Blue Ridge. Mr. Goode, of 

^^ But two petitions favorable to emancipation came from the 
Tidewater. 

^ Washington and Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, p. 84. 



190 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Mecklenburg, the leader of the slave interests, tried to 
prevent consideration of the requests for abolition 
legislation. With this object in view he introduced a 
resolution to relieve the committee from the necessity 
of considering the petition from the Quakers of 
Charles City County. The resolution was defeated, 
however, by the decisive vote : ayes 27, noes 93. Only 
one affirmative vote came from west of the Blue 
Ridge.^^ 

By dilatory tactics the committee tried to prevent 
discussion, but it was impossible. The public had been 
aroused to too intense a state of excitement. While 
impatiently awaiting action the Richmond Enquirer 
threw a firebrand which put an end to all silence. It 
said : 

It is possible from what we learn that the committee on 
the colored population will report some plan for getting rid 
of the free people of color. But is this all that can be done? 
Are we forever to suffer the greatest evil which can scourge 
our land, not only to remain but increase in its domains? 
"We may shut our eyes and avert our faces, if you please," 
writes an eloquent South Carolinian, "but there it is, the black 
and gnawing evil at our doors — and meet the question we must 
at no distant day. God only knows what it is the part of wise 
men to do on that momentous and appalling subject. Of this 
I am sure, that the difference, nothing short of frightful, be- 
tween all that exists on one side of the Potomac and all on 
the other side, is owing to that cause alone. The disease is 
deep rooted — it is at the heart's core — it is consuming and 
has all along been consuming our vitals, and I would laugh, 
if I could laugh at such a subject, of the ignorance and folly 
of politicians who ascribe that to an act of government which 

'^Journal, House of Del., 1831-32, 29. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 191 

is the inevitable effect of the eternal laws of nature. What is 
to be done? Oh, my God, I don't know, but something must 
be done !"'« 

Within a very few days this editorial appeared in 
whole or in part in practically the entire press of the 
state. ^'^ Four days after its appearance in the En- 
quirer Goode made another effort in the Assembly to 
restrain the smoldering fire of abolition sentiment. 
After inquiring when the committee on the abolition 
petitions intended to report and receiving no definite 
answer, he moved that it be discharged from the con- 
sideration of "all petitions, memorials, and resolutions 
which have for their object the manumission of per- 
sons held in servitude under the laws of this Common- 
wealth, and that it is not expedient to legislate on the 
subject. "^^ 

This resolution gave the abolitionists an opportu- 
nity, and precipitated one of the ablest debates ever 
witnessed in this country on the subject of emancipa- 
tion. Immediately Thomas Jefferson Randolph, grand- 
son of Jefferson, moved to amend Goode's motion by 
substituting in lieu thereof the following: 

That the committee be instructed to inquire into the ex- 
pediency of submitting to the vote of the qualified voters in 
the several towns, cities, boroughs and counties of this Com- 
monwealth the propriety of providing by law that the children 
of all female slaves who may be born in this state on or after 
the fourth day of July, 1840, shall become the property of the 

^Richmond Enquirer, January 7, 1832. 

^"^ Niles Register, XLI, 369; National Intelligencer, January 10, 
1832. 

^Journal, House of Del., 1831-32, 93. 



192 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Commonwealth, the males at the age of twenty-one and the 
females at the age of eighteen if detained by their owners 
within the limits of Virginia until they respectively arrive at 
the ages aforesaid ; to be hired out until the net sum arising 
therefrom shall be sufficient tO' defray the expense of their 
removal beyond the limits of the United States.'^ 

This is Jefferson's post nati scheme, first advanced 
in 1779. After three days of discussion the committee 
made a report to the effect that "it is inexpedient for 
the present to make any legislative enactments for the 
abolition of slavery."^^ Immediately Mr. Preston, of 
Montgomery, moved to amend the report by substi- 
tuting in lieu thereof, ''it is expedient to adopt some 
legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."^^ 

The general tone in the argument of the western 
delegates in 1831-32 was quite different from what 
it had been in the constitutional convention of 1829-30. 
Now they looked upon negro slavery as the greatest 
evil which could befall them. They now feared that 
the state laws against the domestic slave trade would 
divert Virginia's surplus slaves to the west,^^ and that 
they would soon become slave-holders in spite of them- 
selves. In reply to these arguments the eastern dele- 
gates assured the westerners that it was not imperative 
for them to purchase negroes. They also insisted that 
slavery would continue to be confined more and more 
to the lower South, eventually ridding Virginia of the 
evil. In this connection Mr. Burr said : 

'^Journal, House of Del., 1831-32, 93. 

"^Ibid., 99. *'Ibid., 99. 

^^ Pamphlet, speech of James McDowell (1831-32), 21, 23. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 193 

The dark wave of negro slavery, which haunts your imagi- 
nation, has rolled against the mountains for generations and 
has cast only a slight spray beyond. The foot of the negro 
delights not in the dew of the mountain grass. He is the 
child of the sandy desert. The burning sun gives him life and 
vigor, and his step is most joyous in the arid plain.** 

The burden of the argument of the aboHtionists 
was that negro slavery was an economic evil. "It is," 
said Thomas Marshall, ''ruinous to the whites ; retards 
improvements; roots out our industrious population; 
banishes the yeomanry from the country; and deprives 
the spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoemaker, and 
the carpenter of employment and support."** They 
insisted that the domestic slave trade was the only 
thing which then made negro slavery profitable in 
Virginia, and that when it should cease slave prices 
would fall to a minimum. They frequently compared 
the wealth and population of Virginia with that of 
one of the new free states to the great disadvantage 
of the former. They also insisted that the presence 
of the negro slaves was causing the standard of living 
to decline. Said Marshall : ''All the chief glories of 
Virginia style have faded ; gone is the massive coach 
with its stately attelage of four or six; shut is the 
beneficent hall door; .... the watering-places no 
longer blaze with the rich but decent pomp of Virgin- 
ians ; and the cities rarely bear witness of her generous 
expense."^^ But the Virginia abolitionists, like those 

*^ Pamphlet, speech in the General Assembly of 1831-32. 
*^ Wheeling Intelligencer, November 28, 1859. 
^American Quarterly Review, December, 1832. 



194 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

elsewhere, failed or refused to consider that negroes 
freed would still be negroes, and as repellent to white 
immigration as when slaves. They busied themselves 
chiefly with a slave problem, while their opponents 
were concerned with a negro problem. 

The answers to these arguments reveal clearly the 
change of mind which the east was undergoing. 
Goode denied that negro slavery was responsible for 
the "gullied hillsides" and "the turned-out fields." 
Such spectacles, he insisted, had appeared only after 
the planter with his negroes had deserted the land to 
build commonwealths in the new South. He insisted 
that slave-holding Virginia was being reclaimed, and 
that her population had not flown from the evils of 
negro slavery, "because," said he, "they are now 
found residing chiefly in the slave-holding states."*^ 
He believed that the energy and power of Virginia 
and her institutions could not be estimated with 
accuracy unless the new commonwealths of the South- 
west were taken into consideration. 

Others of the eastern delegates were not so opti- 
mistic regarding the economic benefits of negro 
slavery. "It is," said Brodnax, "a mildew which has 
blighted in its course every region it has touched from 
the creation of the world. "^'^ He was, however, 
opposed to Randolph's plan of gradual emancipation 
and laid down the following conditions as the only 
ones under which abolition could be effected : ( i ) the 
immediate removal of the emancipated from the state; 

*" Pamphlet, speech of W. O. Goode (1831-32), 10, 20. 
*^ Pamphlet, speech of W. H. Brodnax (1831-32), 11. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 195 

(2) private property must not be interfered with; and 

(3) not a single negro or any other property he pos- 
sesses can be taken from its owner, ''zvithout his own- 
er's consent, or an ample compensation. "^^ j^^ 
opposed the post nati scheme because it deprived the 
owner of his property in the child-bearing power of 
his female slaves, "an item of chief consideration in 
their sale or purchase."^^ 

Many of the abolitionists insisted that there was 
no property right in the unborn and that an act declar- 
ing them free could not infringe the rights of private 
property. Others admitted that such rights would be 
thus impaired but insisted that the sacrifice should be 
made. McDowell, of Rockbridge, said: "Private 
property, which a state allows to be held by its citizens, 
must consist with the general end for which the state 
is created; the power to correct an evil tendency is 
inherent in all government, and the exercise of such 
power is no infringement of private rights."^^ 

Randolph's plan was also opposed on the ground 
that it was impracticable; the state would add one more 
purchaser; and prices would accordingly be increased. 
The abolitionists were repeatedly reminded that, had 
abolition been practicable, the fathers who desired it 
so much would have devised some scheme to effect it. 
To this argument McDowell answered: "The diffi- 
culties in the way are not more positive than the neces- 
sity of legislation" and "you cannot canonize error 
because of its antiquity." Mr. Summers of Kanawha 

^^Ihid., 12. "^Ibid., 14. 

^Pamphlet, speech of James McDowell (1831-32), 15. 



196 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

suggested that the proceeds of the public lands be used 
to effect emancipation.^^ 

Moral issues influenced only a few of the Virginia 
abolitionists of 1832. On this phase of the subject 
Marshall said : ''We know that the ordinary condition 
of the slaves in Virginia is not such as to make hu- 
manity weep for his lot. Our solicitations to the slave- 
holder, it will be perceived, are founded but little on 
the miseries of the blacks."^^ Other reasons advanced 
in behalf of emancipation were : the danger of a servile 
population in times of war and that it was demanded 
by the public. To support these points it was main- 
tained that dismemberment of the Union was not im- 
probable and that there was danger of the slaves 
becoming a constant source of trouble between a north- 
ern and a southern confederacy.^^ 

In reply to these arguments the pro-slavery dele- 
gates insisted that negro slaves would be a source of 
strength in time of war and pointed to the experience 
of two successful wars tO' prove their contention. ^^ 
The proposition to submit the question of emancipa- 
tion to a vote of the people Goode condemned as 
unsafe; it would then be necessary to discuss emanci- 
pation in the midst of the slaves ; useless excitement 
and possible insurrections might follow. ^^ 

On the part of the westerners the argument was 
characterized by frequent outbursts of the principles 

*^ Pamphlet, speech of James McDowell (1831-32), 6 ff. 
^American Quarterly Reviezv, December 18, 1832. 
^Pamphlet, speech of W. O. Goode (1831-32), 18. 
^Ihid., 18. ^'Ihid., 9. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 197 

of 1776. One of the most eloquent appeals of this 
nature was made by McDowell : 

You may place the slave [said he] where you please, you 
may dry up to the utmost the fountains of his feelings, the 
spring of his thought — you may close upon his mind the avenue 
to knowledge and cloud it over with artificial night — you may 
yoke him to your labor as an ox which liveth only to work 
and worketh only to live — you may put him under any process, 
which, without destroying his value as a slave, will debase and 
crush him as a rational being — you may do this and the idea 
that he was born to be free will survive all. It is allied to 
his hope of immortality — it is the ethical part of his nature 
which oppression cannot reach — it is the torch lit up in his 
soul by the hand of the deity and never meant to be extin- 
guished by the hand of man/' 

Samuel McDowell Moore, his colleague and relative, 
believed that — 

the autocrat of Russia does not more deserve the name 
tyrant for sending his hordes of barbarians to plant the blood- 
stained banner on the walls of Warsaw, amid the desolation 
of all that is near to the hearts of free men, than does the 
petty tyrant, who, in any quarter of the globe, is equally regard- 
less of the acknowledged rights of man." 

Such utterances constituted, however, only a minor 
part of the debate. Most of the speakers were of a 
younger generation and they addressed themselves to 
reach a more materially minded Virginia than did even 
the speakers of 1829-30. 

Another feature of the debates of 1831-32, not so 
marked a feature of prior discussions but of much 



^ Wheeling Intelligencer, November 28, 1859. 
" Quoted in speech by W. O. Goode, 32. 



198 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

subsequent importance, was the disposition of the pro- 
slavery men to place the western leaders in a place of 
discredit, to whip them into line, and to dub the most 
refractory with opprobrious epithets. Goode was 
especially resourceful in the use of these tactics. He 
characterized the abolition leaders as the Rufus Kings 
of the west; they were told that the east could expect 
nothing of them in the time of her calamity, should it 
ever come. "When our aged mothers shall call in vain 
for protection from their slaughtered sons," asked 
Goode, "will they be found leading or mingling with 
the black horde?" C. J. Faulkner and W. B. Preston 
were ridiculed for comparing the abolition movement 
to "a great political revolution," to the "generous 
efforts of the Parisian patriots." W. G. Summers was 
an object of suspicion because he found delight in the 
political theories of Thomas Jefferson. He was de- 
nominated the "Byron of the west, walking on the 
mountain tops and gazing on the desolation which 
burns in the plains below." In case abolition had 
diffused itself through the mountains, Goode was for 
immediate dismemberment, as the only alternative to 
the recurrence of the horrors of Saint Bartholomew.^^ 
Few of the prominent western leaders ever lived 
down the part they took in this debate. Some did not 
care to do so and usually sank into political oblivion; 
others succeeded in placating the slave power and 
received political recognition. Among them were Mc- 
Dowell, who later became governor, and Faulkner and 
Preston, who became minister to France and secretary 

^ Quoted in speech by W. O. Goode, 32. 




SO 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 199 

of the navy respectively. But Summers could not 
become governor; McDowell was denied the goal of 
his ambition, a seat in the United States Senate ; while 
others received only casual recognition. 

Preston's amendment to the report of the select 
committee that, "it is expedient to adopt some legis- 
lative amendment for the abolition of slavery," was 
defeated: ayes 58, noes y^)-^^ The accompanying map 
shows the sectional character of the vote in the House 
of Delegates. Only three delegates from the Tide- 
water counties voted aye, and one of them represented 
Henrico, which lies only partly below the fall line. 
The counties of the Piedmont foothills, Buckingham, 
Amherst, Albemarle, together gave four votes in the 
affirmative. The fact that the counties in the upper 
Potomac and the lower Shenandoah Valley voted so 
largely in the negative is not without significance. 
True, they had a large slave population, but they were 
a'so the counties which, as has been seen, had recently 
formed a political alliance with the east. The map 
shows the central and southern parts of the valley and 
the whole trans- Alleghany a unit in favor of the 
expediency of legislation upon the subject of emanci- 
pation. 

Defeated on Preston's amendment, the abolitionists 
attempted another declaration of principles. Bryce, 
of Goochland County, proposed to amend the report 
of the select committee which declared it inexpedient 
to legislate upon the subject of emancipation, by pre- 
fixing the following preamble : 

^Journal, House of Del., 1831-32, 109. 



200 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Profoundly sensible of the great evils arising from the 
condition of the colored population of the Commonwealth; in- 
duced by humanity as well as policy, to an immediate effort 
for the removal, in the first place, as well as those who are 
now free as of such as may hereafter become free, believing 
that this effort, while it is in just accordance with the senti- 
ment of the community on the subject, will absorb all our 
present means ; and that a further action for the removal of 
the slaves should await a more definite development of public 
opinion, Resolved, etc. 

After strenuous opposition from the pro-slavery men 
this preamble was adopted : ayes 67, noes 60.^^ In 
addition to the counties favorable to Preston's amend- 
ment those counties marked ''X" on the map favored 
this preamble. They were represented by delegates 
favorable to emancipation but opposed to immediate 
legislation, on the ground that the status of federal 
relations made it inexpedient.^^ 

The House next took up a bill for the removal 
from the state of the free people of color.^- It pro- 
vided for their compulsory removal and for an appro- 
priation of $100,000 to meet the first expenses thereof. 
The discussion of this bill turned upon whether or not 
coercion should be used and upon the amount of the 
appropriation. Delegates from the west opposed 
forced removals and so large an appropriation. As 
finally passed by the House the bill made the deporta- 
tion of those already free voluntary and provided for 

^'^ Journal, House of Del., 1831-32, no. Thus amended the 
report of the select committee passed but was carried by the 
western vote. 

*^ Slaughter, Hist. Am. Colonizatioti Society, 40. 

^ At this time the free colored population numbered 47,348. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 201 

an appropriation of $35,000 to be used in 1832 and 
$90,000 to be used in 1833.^^ 

The free discussion of 1831-32 was followed by a 
decided reaction against abolition. A powerful essay- 
entitled 'A Revieiv of the Debates in the Virginia Legis- 
lature of 1831-32 by Professor Thomas R. Dew, of 
William and Mary College, crystallized the pro-slavery 
sentiment.^^ In both the abstract and the practical this 
essay dealt with slavery in all countries and especially 
with the rise and development of negro slavery in 
America. It clearly set forth the difficulties in deport- 
ing the slave and free colored population and the 
dangers to society of emancipation without deporta- 
tion. It deprecated the idea of a successful slave up- 
rising SO' long as the whites constituted a considerable 
portion of the total population, and pointed out the 
dangers to property and society of permitting young 
and inexperienced legislators freely to discuss so mo- 
mentous a question as emancipation. 

Jesse Burton Harrison^^ answered Professor Dew 
in an essay entitled A Review of the Speech of 
Thomas Marshall in the Virginia Assembly of 18 31- 
32.^^ It was simply a reiteration of the arguments 

^^ Journal, House of Del., 1831-32, 158. The bill was defeated 
in the Senate (National Intelligencer, February 21, 1832; ibid., 
March 15, 1832). 

^* This essay can be found in the Political Register, II, No. 5, 
and in pamphlet form. It was also published in Pro-Slavery 
Argument (Charleston, 1852), 287-490. 

®^ Slaughter, Hist. Am. Col. Society, 64. 

^American Quarterly Review, December, 1832; African Re- 
pository, IX, No. I. 



202 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

advanced to prove negro slavery in Virginia an eco- 
nomic evil. It met with little favor, and for a long 
time the authorship of the essay was kept anonymous. 
Madison also made a brief answer to Dew's 
essay.^^ He insisted that in his explanation of the 
depressed condition of Virginia, Dew had given too 
little importance to the presence of negro slavery and 
to emigration, and that he had emphasized too strongly 
the influence of the tariff laws. This protest is inter- 
esting as an expression of the attitude of the old 
school of conservatives. 

As wool-growing and manufacturing became more 
important in the west devotion to the American System 
increased.^^ Petitions continued to come to Congress 
from that section for protection and appropriations 
for works of internal improvement.^^ Of the condi- 
tions there Niles said : "The western and middle coun- 
ties are even now favorable to the system, though yet 
embarrassed by the politics of the * junto' at Rich- 
mond."'^<^ 

The subject of most interest to the west was the 
preservation of the salt industry. In 1830 Benton 
introduced a bill in Congress to abolish entirely the 
duty on salt. By numerous depositions and letters he 
attempted to show that the salt-makers on the Kanawha 

"Madison, Writings (ed. Cong.), IV, 277, 278. 

** The census of 1840 gave more than one-half million sheep 
in western Virginia (Howe, Hist. Coll., 161, 162). 

^'Journal, House of Rep., 21 Cong., 2d sess., 120, 162. 

^'^ Niles Register, XLV, 242. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 203 

and Holston maintained a monopoly of the salt trade ; 
that owners were annually paid large amounts to keep 
their salt wells idle ; and that unfair means were used 
to prevent foreign competition^^ On the other hand, 
the salt-makers claimed to be the benefactors of the 
country. By elaborate memorials to Congress they 
showed how their enterprise had reduced the price in 
the interior from twelve, eight, five, and three dollars 
successively, to seventy-five cents cents per bushel, and 
denied that a monopoly existed J ^ Since the applica- 
tion of steam to river navigation had enabled the West 
India salt, carried to New Orleans as ballast, to com- 
pete with home manufacturers, they insisted that in- 
creased protection was needed instead of the proposed 
reduction. 

The final abolition of the protective duty on salt 
made the administration very unpopular in the Kana- 
wha and Holston valleys. Accompanied by severe 
editorial comments, Benton's speeches on the salt tax 
appeared in the western prints, and mass-meetings 
were held to denounce their author.^ ^ "That a 
measure calculated to destroy the only considerable 
manufacture in the state," said the editor of the 
Kanawha Banner, ''should meet the support of almost 
the entire representation from Virginia presents a 
strange anomaly. More than one million dollars worth 

''^Cong. Debates, VIII, Part III, 3314, 3469; ii'id., VII, 127, 
131, 136. 

''^Ibid., VII, Appendix, cxxv ; Journal, House of Rep., 21 
Cong., 2d sess., 162. 

''^Kanawha Banner, November 12, 19, 26, 1830; ihid., Feb- 
ruary 4, 18, 25, 1831. 



204 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

of property, actually invested, is thus sacrificed on 
the altar of political consistency."'^* The policy of re- 
taining the duty upon sugar and repealing that upon 
salt was denominated "an attack upon the free citizens 
of the country." ''We hold," said the editor of the 
Kanazi'ha Banner, "that the owner [slave-owner] can 
never rightfully so regulate the country by law, as to 
give a value to slave labor over that of the free, hardy, 
and enlightened sons of the republic. "'^^ 

The accompanying map shows the vote of Virginia 
in the House of Representatives on the tariff of 
1832.'^^ But one representative from west of the 
Blue Ridge voted against it. The compromise feature 
of this tariff gained votes for it in the slightly nation- 
alistic districts of the Tidewater and along the Po- 
tomac.'^^ The affirmative vote from the district lying 
immediately southwest of Richmond was determined 
largely by the desire of the coal .operators of Chester- 
field and Powhatan counties for a duty on coal.^^ 

In the congressional elections of 1829 and 1831 
not wholly unsuccessful efforts were made by the 
National Republicans to carry the congressional dis- 
tricts in the west.'^^ These attacks upon this vulnerable 
spot in the strict construction phalanx and the agita- 

''* Kanawha Banner, December 31, 1830. 

''^ Ibid., January 7, 1831. 

""^Journal, House of Rep., 22 Cong., ist sess., 1023. 

''"'Lynchburg Virginian, September 3, 10, 1832. 

""Journal, House of Rep., 22 Cong., ist sess., 234, 290. 

"In 1829 the transmontane districts elected Doddridge, Craig, 
Maxwell, and Armstrong, all National Republicans. They were re- 
elected in 1 83 1. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 205 

tion for a protective tariff called from John Tyler the 
following: "I know that the effort is working to sever, 
in sentiment and feeling, eastern and western Virginia. 
. . . . I have even heard something said about a 
division of the state. I have but a single sentiment to 
express upon this subject, and it is Virginia now and 
forever. "^^ 

The result of the presidential election of 1-832 was 
more important from the standpoint of sectionalism 
than a map of the vote would indicate. By safe majori- 
ties Jackson carried every county in the state except 
seven. Clay's strength was isolated and confined to 
small areas more or less interested in internal improve- 
ments.^^ But the issue in the election of 1832 in Vir- 
ginia was not so much specific items of the American 
System as the general policy of strict construction. 
Convinced that they could not succeed and satisfied 
with the attitude of Jackson toward the nullifiers the 
National Republicans of the west forfeited the elec- 
tion.^^ It is not without significance that Jackson's 
largest vote came from the Valley ; that the old nation- 
alist strongholds, Augusta, Greenbrier, and Kanawha 
counties, gave him majorities; and that the vote in 
the east, despite the fact that a large number had been 
recently admitted to the rights of suffrage, was small. 
Already many political leaders and most of the aristo- 

^""Cong. Debates, VIII, Part I, 360. 

®^ He carried Ohio, Jefferson, Berkeley, Loudoun, and Princess 
Anne counties {Richmond Whig, November 19, 1832). 

^^ Lynchburg Virginian, September 3, 1832; ibid., November 
IS. 1832. 



206 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

cratic planters were revolting against the absolutism 
which reigned in the White House and the whoop and 
hurrah methods which gave it sanction. ^^ Many voters 
in the east accepted Jackson in 1832 as the lesser 
of two evils. ^^ 

As a sectional contest the campaign for the election 
of the vice-president was more important than the 
presidential election. Led by Thomas W. Gilmer the 
ardent strict construction wing of the Democratic 
party, for the most part confined to the counties east of 
the Blue Ridge, opposed the election of Van Buren and 
put P. P. Barbour forward as their choice. Barbour 
was an ardent strict constructionist ; he opposed Nulli- 
fication, but defended the right of a state to secede.^^ 
At first an effort was made to secure the nomination 
of the Baltimore convention for him. In this attempt 
the state-rights men of Virginia co-operated with 
others of the same political faith in South Carolina, 
North Carolina, and Alabama. Their combined efforts 
gave Barbour, however, only forty-nine votes. ^^ 

Chagrined at their defeat and distrustful of Van 
Buren's nationalism and political methods the Barbour 
party in Virginia resolved to turn the electoral vote to 

^Alexandria Gazette, August 8, 1832; William and Mary Col- 
lege Quarterly, XXII, 87; Niles Register, XLI, 227; National 
Intelligencer, September 14, 1831. 

^ Cong. Debates, VI, Part II, y^,^' 

^ Niles Register, XLIII, 124, 125; Lynchburg Virginian, Octo- 
ber II, 1832. 

" The vote for Barbour was : Virginia, 23 ; South Carolina, 
11; North Carolina, 6; Alabama, 6; Maryland, 3 (Niles Register, 
XLII, 235). 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 207 

their candidate. With the co-operation of other south- 
ern states they hoped to throw the election of the vice- 
president into the Senate and thus to defeat Van Buren. 
.At first an effort was made to secure a pledge from the 
electors on the Democratic ticket to support Barbour in 
case the popular vote should name him as the choice 
of the state.^''' The Jackson-Van Buren electors re- 
fused to commit themselves,^^ and a Jackson-Barbour 
electoral ticket was nominated.^^ As finally launched, 
the opposition party professed devotion to Jackson, 
applauded the bank veto, and denounced the tariff. 
The election of Barbour, its adherents insisted, would 
break up the ''nest of harpies" which were hovering- 
about the federal capital, teach Jackson that he could 
not impose the political practices of New York upon 
Virginia, and allay the nullification excitement.^^ 

Led by Rives, Ritchie, and McDowell the thor- 
oughgoing Jackson Democrats remained loyal to Van 
Buren. The followers of McDowell and Rives, con- 
fined for the most part to the counties of the Piedmont 
foothills and the west, were Democrats of the Madison 
type. They believed in the constitutionality of a bank 
and a protective tariff but doubted their expediency.^^ 
They claimed that the defeat of Van Buren meant the 

^''Lynchburg Virginian, September 17, 1832. 

^^ Ibid., September 24, 1832. 

^Ibid., October 15, 1832. 

""Ibid., September 20, 1832; ibid., October 8, 1832. 

»^See Madison, Cabell Letters; also "Letters to C. J. Inger- 
sol," in Niles Register, XL, 352; Madison, Writings (ed. Cong.), 
IV, 183. Rives was possibly Madison's closest political friend dur- 
ing the last years of his life. 



208 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA; 1776-1861 

election of Sargent, the National Republican candi- 
date,^- and that Clay and Calhoun had combined to 
defeat Jackson and Van Buren.^^ McDowell, the 
leader of the western wing of this party, opposed the 
election of Barbour on the ground that he was a nulli- 
fier. ''It is not enough," said he, "to say that Mr. 
Barbour is no more of a nullifier than any state-rights 
man in Virginia."^^ 

Immediately after Van Buren's public declaration 
of opposition to an oppressive protective tariff, to 
works of internal improvement by the federal govern- 
ment,^^ and to the recharter of the national bank, 
Barbour withdrew from the contest. The necessity of 
party unity, he said, demanded his withdrawals^ 
Members of the opposition party alleged, however, 
that threats from Richmond and promises from Wash- 
ington prompted his action. ^"^ The National Repub- 
lican press was pretty well agreed that Barbour would 
not have received more than one-half the votes given 
Sargent.s^ Accepting this estimate and considering 
the fact that the Barbour party was almost exclusively 
confined to the east, there can be little doubt that a 
poll for their candidate would have shown a large 

^^ Lynchburg Virginian, September 3, 1832. 

"^ Ibid., September 3, 1832. 

^Washington and Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, p. 113. McDowell 
was a brother-in-law of Thomas H. Benton. 

^Lynchburg Virginian, October 25, 1832. 

^^Ibid., November, 1832. 

°'' Ibid., November, 1832. Barbour was later appointed asso- 
ciate justice of the Supreme Court. 

'^Sargent and Clay received about 12,000 votes. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 209 

number of the counties in the Tidewater and lower 
Piedmont opposed to Van Buren. 

When the Assembly met, one month after the elec- 
tion of 1832, there was every indication that the union 
between the Barbour and Van Buren factions was per- 
manent. With only six dissenting votes W. C. Rives 
was elected to the United States Senate.*^^ The press 
commented upon the political union and the blow given 
Nullification by the election of Rives. ^*^^ 

But South Carolina's ordinance of Nullification and 
the President's Proclamation soon caused the discor- 
dant factions of the Democratic party to part company. 
Led by Rives and McDowell the western party joined 
the National Republicans to form a Union party, while 
the seceders and nullifiers in the east united and 
formed a State-Rights party. True, no hard-and- 
fast sectional line can be drawn between these parties. 
The Union party had supporters in the east; the 
State-Rights party found a following in the Valley 
and along the Kanawha; Ritchie of the Enquirer re- 
mained with the former; while Pleasants of the Whig, 
the former National-Republican organ, joined the 
latter. 

Already the position of the east and the west upon 
the subject of federal relations had been pretty def- 
initely determined. A majority of the leaders in the 
former section were opposed to Nullification but in- 

^^ The dissenting votes were given, two to Barbour, three to 
Randolph, and one to Floyd {Journal, House of Del, 1832-33, 
22). 

'^'^ Lynchburg Virginian, December 17, 1832; Washington and 
Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, p. no. 



2IO SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

sisted on the right of a state to secede. How far this 
position was determined by the practical difficulties 
which then confronted the nullifiers is difficult to de- 
termine. There were, however, many state-rights 
men in Virginia who believed in McDuffie's conten- 
tion that Nullification was based upon the doctrines 
of 1798.^^^ Representatives Gordon, Davenport, 
Bouldin, and J. S. Barbour ''hobnobbed" with the 
nullifiers in Washington and considered their re-elec- 
tion in 1 83 1 as a triumph for their cause.^^^ Governor 
Floyd was considered friendly to Nullification ;^^^ the 
Richmond Whig co-operated with southern leaders in 
behalf of a southern convention ;^^^ leaders in the 
lower Piedmont (quite probably Bouldin and Daven- 
port) were thought to be in alliance with the nulli- 
fiers ;^*^^ and the Petersburg Jeffersonian edited by 
Cralle was an ardent Nullification sheet.^^^ 

On the other hand, the westerners had refused to 
accept either Nullification or Secession as the shibbo- 
leth of their party or to raise state sovereignty above 
that of the nation. ^^^ Accepting Madison's interpreta- 
tion of the Resolutions of 1798, they insisted that the 
states possessed only a part of the sovereign power and 
that no one of them could nullify a federal law.^^^ Nu- 

^''^ Register of Cong. Debates, VIII, Part I, 290. 
^"^ Lynchburg Virginian, August 23, 1832. 
^'" Ibid., August 23, 1832. 
^^ Ibid., September 10, 27, 1832. 

^"^ Register of Cong. Debates, VIII, Part III, 3170. 
^^ Lynchburg Virginian, February 11, 25, 1833. 
"^ Washington and Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, pp. 106-12. 
"* Madison, Writings (ed. Cong.), IV, 61, 289, 409; Wise, 
Seven Decades of the Union, 121-25. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 21 1 

merous essays, letters, and editorials had already 
appeared in the western prints and the Richmond En- 
quirer to show that the South Carolina doctrines were 
not those of 1798. The most important contributions 
of this nature were the series of essays by "Agricola," 
which appeared in the Enquirer in August and Septem- 
ber, 1832. Inhabitants of the west believed that South 
Carolina's course had been determined by the reverses 
of designing and ambitious politicians; they accord- 
ingly refused ''to parcel out the Empire. "^^^ South 
Carolina out of the Union was pictured as ''the most 
wretched place on the globe." "She would be," said 
the editor of the Lynchburg Virginian, "an ally con- 
temptible to a foreign nation and would be forced to 
sell her independence as the price of protection." Even 
before the election of 1832 numerous mass-meetings 
had been held in the western counties to condemn the 
Nullification programme. Citizens of Amherst County 
denounced it as a fallacious delusion opposed to the 
Resolutions of 1798.^^^ At a meeting in Nelson it was 
resolved : "That we consider any immediate opposition 
to the tariff law by the forceful interposition of a state 
as unsafe, impolitic, unwise, and highly dangerous to 
the best interests of the nation. "^^^ 

The ordinance of Nullification, the Proclamation, 
and the subsequent discussions in Congress and the 
Assembly aroused the west to take a firmer stand for 
the Union. The resolutions passed by the various 
mass-meetings there and the letters written on federal 

^'^ Richmond Enquirer, August 23, 1832. 

^^^Ibid., October, 1832. ^^^Ibid., September 10, 1832. 



212 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

relations would fill a good-sized volume. They repre- 
sent the final sentiment in the contest of the west for 
nationalism. They are very similar in content, and it 
will be necessary to note only a few of them here. 

Citizens of Augiista were of opinion that no state 
had a right to resist federal laws; that their only re- 
course lay in constitutional amendment or in the Su- 
preme Court; that the action of South Carolina was "a, 
plain and palpable violation of her constitutional obli- 
gation to the other states ;" they looked with pity rather 
than anger upon her rashness and asked executive 
clemency ; they insisted that — 

if South Carolina has a moral right to overthrow the govern- 
ment, when it becomes intolerably oppressive, Virginia and the 
other states of the Union have, in addition to the right of 
union and security conferred upon them by the federal com- 
pact, the moral right of self-protection; and in the spirit of 
justice, and of enlightened liberty, of preserving by force, if 
necessary, that government upon which they believe the strength, 
the freedom, and the happiness of these United States de- 
pends.^" 

Citizens of Nelson resolved that the sovereign 
power, both state and national, resided in the people; 
that power did not belong to the majority of a single 
state, a small part of the total population, ''to alter or 
abolish the government established for the collective 
and united benefit, safety and happiness, by nullifying 
the laws of the United States or destroying by seces- 
sion the compact entered into for the mutual benefit 
of all ;" that the action of South Carolina was anarchic ; 

^^ Lynchburg Virginian, January 7, 1833. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 213 

and that force should be used, if necessary, to compel 
obedience to federal laws.^^^ 

A mass-meeting in Smyth County expressed devo- 
tion to the Union, denounced Nullification as political 
heresy, opposed the Proclamation, and asked that the 
tariff be reduced.^ ^^ Of the vacillating attitude of the 
state-rights men in the Assembly it said : 

Its [their] doctrines are temporizing and puerile, calculated 
to draw this commonwealth into the vortex of Nullification. 
. . . . For we hold that Virginia Secession and South Carolina 
Nullification do most necessarily lead to the same results ; and 
it is with unutterable regret and the deepest indignation that 
we see the legislature of Virginia spending days and weeks in 
impossible debates to determine whether she will give up our 
whole Union into the hands of demagogues and frenzied po- 
litical aspirants."^ 

Moore, the doughty old Federalist of Rockbridge, 
believed that — 

when the star spangled banner is unfurled upon the top 
of one of our lofty mountains, and the inhabitants are told 
that the Union is in danger, every valley, glen and dale will 
pour forth its population prepared tO' conquer or die beneath 
the flag that has so often led their fathers to victory."® 

Moore's neighbor, William Taylor, wrote James Mc- 
Dowell : 

^^^ Ibid., January 31, 1832. For similar resolutions, see ibid.j 
December 25, 1832; January 10, 21, 31, 1833; February 11, 25, 
1833; National Intelligencer, January 7, 8, 10, 1833; Niles Regis- 
ter, XLIII, 318. 

"* Many, if not most, of the resolutions passed at these mass- 
meetings favored a reduction in the tariff. 

"^'^ Lynchburg Virginian, February 11, 1833. 

^'^^ Ibid., December 25, 1832. Moore later joined the Confed- 
erate army. 



214 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776^1861 

The President's Proclamation meets general approval. The 
Clay men are loud in its praise. The Union [the local paper] 
thinks it ought to be placed along side of the Declaration of 
Independence."^ 

Later he wrote of the mass-meeting held in Rock- 
bridge : 

There was great unanimity and a fixed determination to 
sustain the President. All were against Nullification although 
there would have been a difference of opinion on the subject of 
state rights, if any attempt had been made to give an analysis 
of the principles of our government. This exciting subject 
was, however, prudently avoided. 

I was sorry to see the strong sentiment expressed against 
Carolina by some of the people. I believe volunteers could 
have been obtained at once to go out against her."* 

About the same time Archibald Graham wrote : 

The old General's Proclamation seems not to have been 
relished much by the Virginia politicians. In this region [the 
Valley] it has been received with loud and almost universal 
applause. The old federal and Clay parties hail it as the har- 
binger of better times that are to settle forever the principles 
they have been contending for. The Jackson party receive it 
favorably because it is Jackson's. A few, and a very few, 

cannot swallow its high-toned federal doctrines There 

is a strong feeling in this county against Nullification and a 
very general disposition to put it down vi et annis. I believe 
a strong volunteer company could be raised at a moment's 
warning to march against them."® 

At first few mass-meetings were held in the lower 
Piedmont and the Tidewater counties, but the dis- 

^" Washington and Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, pp. 110-15. 

^^ Ibid., No. 5, p. no. 

^"^ Ibid., No. 5, pp. 1 10-15. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 215 

cusslon of the Force Bill made feigned indifference on 
their part no longer possible. John Randolph threw 
away his bed and crutches and appeared on the politi- 
cal stage for the last time as the advocate of state 
rights. Under his direction citizens of Charlotte and 
other counties resolved that Virgina was a free, sov- 
ereign, and independent state; that, although necessity 
had made it convenient to delegate certain powers to a 
confederacy, she had parted with no portion of her 
sovereignty, and that she had never parted with her 
right to withdraw her delegated powers to secede from 
the confederacy. These resolutions condemned Nulli- 
fication as weak and mischievous and denounced the 

nationalistic tendencies of Jackson's Proclamation and 
the Force Bill. 120 

A few days after the meeting of the Assembly of 
1832-33 Governor Floyd communicated to it official 
information of the Nullification ordinance and the 
President's Proclamations.^-^ Immediately a select 
committee of twenty-one was appointed to take under 
consideration the federal relations; to determine the 
course which Virginia should pursue and the propriety 
of a general convention of the states; and to make a 
declaration of opinion on ''the present fearful crisis." 
After much debate in the committee of the whole, the 
select committee, controlled by the State-Rights party, 
reported a long list of resolutions. They expressed a 
desire for union by means which would keep the fed- 
eral and state governments within constitutional limits ; 

^^ Lynchburg Virginian, February 11, 14, 25, 1833. 
^^ Journal J House of Del., 1832-33, 30. 



2i6 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776^1861 

deemed it unwise to make an exposition of Virginia's 
well-known political creed; denounced the tariff as 
contrary to the spirit and intent of the Constitution; 
praised South Carolina's resistance but deplored her 
methods ; denounced the Proclamation as a departure 
from the spirit of the Constitution and the Resolutions 
of 1798 ; deplored the use of arms by either the federal 
government or South Carolina; recommended a gen- 
eral convention in case Congress did not take action to 
reduce the tariff ; and suggested that commissioners be 
appointed to convey the resolutions of the Assembly 
to South Carolina. ^^^ 

Marshall, of Fauquier County, moved to substitute 
for the report of the committee a resolution asking the 
proper authorities in South Carolina to rescind the 
ordinance of Nullification, or at least to suspend it 
until after Congress should adjourn.^ ^^ Whereupon 
Bocine, of Hanover, moved to amend the proposed 
substitute by adding thereto a series of resolutions 
which declared it the duty of Virginia to prevent dis- 
union, denounced Nullification as untimely and op- 
posed to the Resolutions of 1798, admitted the right 
of the President to enforce the laws but condemned 
his Proclamation, and requested that he revise it and 
countermand his military orders.^ ^^ 

Although somewhat milder than the report of the 
select committee, Boone's resolutions did not conciliate 
the Union party, as it was hoped they would. The 

^^ Journal, House of Del., 1832-33, 79. B. W. Leigh was later 
sent to South Carolina to offer friendly mediation. 
"^Ibid., 79. '"^Ibid., 79. 



SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION 217 

vote on amending Marshall's substitute by adding 
Boone's resolutions to it was : ayes 'j'iy, nays 50.^^^ The 
accompanying map of this vote shows practically all 
the delegates from counties west of the Blue Ridge 
opposed to it. 

When it became evident that the State-Rights party 
was in control of the Assembly, the Union men 
made a desperate effort to strike from the report of 
the select committee that resolution which censured 
Jackson. A motion to this effect was decided in the 
negative: ayes 61, nays 70.^^^ A map of this vote 
would show practically the same counties opposed to 
censuring Jackson as had opposed Boone's resolutions. 

The resolutions finally adopted by the Assembly 
were in sentiment the same as those originally pro- 
posed by the select committee. The great change 
which had taken place in Virginia politics during the 
session of the Assembly of 1832-33 was shown in the 
result of the election of a United States senator to 
succeed John Tyler. In the first days of the session, 
Rives, an ardent administration man, was elected with- 
out opposition; in the last days Tyler, who sympa- 
thized with Nullification and cast the only vote in the 
United States Senate against the Force Bill,^^^ was re- 
elected. The vote for senator in the House was : Tyler 
63, McDowell 53.-^^^ An analysis of this vote shows 

^Ihid,, 82. ^Ibid., 88. 

^ The vote of Virginia in the House on the Force Bill was : 
ayes 7, nays 13. But one delegate from west of the Blue Ridge 
voted nay. 

^^ Journal, House of Del., 1832-33. In the House Leigh also 
received 7 votes, Tucker 2, Randolph i, and Daniel i. 



2i8 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the same delegates voting for McDowell as opposed the 

State-Rights party on the resolutions on federal rela- 
tions.120 

The State-Rights and Union parties contested the 
congressional and state elections of 1833.^^^ The 
former secured a majority in the Assembly and elected 
nine out of twenty-one representatives in Congress. 
East of the Blue Ridge and south of the Rappahannock 
River the nullifiers and seceders, names applied to the 
State-Rights party, elected every representative ex- 
cept Andrew Stevenson from the Richmond district 
and George Royall from the Norfolk district. In the 
east the Union party was successful only in those 
sections where the National Republican party had been 
strong and where the influence of Ritchie extended. ^^^ 
On the other hand, the districts west of the Blue Ridge, 
without exception, sent members of the Union party 
to represent them in Congress. 

^^ Commenting upon the election of Tyler the Lynchburg Vir- 
ginian of February 21, 1833, said: "So that John Tyler whose 
sentiments border so closely on Nullification as that heresy does 
on Secession was re-elected by a majority of two votes. This is 
a rather singular result, when we recollect that the same body, not 
many weeks ago, by an almost unanimous vote, elected W. C. Rives 
to the same office." / 

^^^ Lynchburg Virginian, April 11, 1833; ibid., May 16, 1833. 

^^ Ibid., May 2, 1833; National Intelligencer, May 7, 1833; 
ISiles Register, XLIV, 162. 



CHAPTER VII 

PARTIES IN THE WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 

The compromise tariff and the attempt to distribute 
the proceeds of the sales of the pubHc lands increased 
Clay's popularity in the west, but they brought con- 
fusion in the ranks of the Union party. The tariff 
satisfied the desire for protection, and the nationalists 
hoped to use the income from the land sales to promote 
works of internal improvement. Many citizens of the 
west refused to believe the rumor that Clay had formed 
a corrupt coalition with Calhoun and insisted that his 
surrender of the American System was a "magnani- 
mous offering on the altar of peace." ^ Jackson, ''the 
impersonation of the Union," was in a measure super- 
seded by Clay, ''its real preserver."^ 

Preparatory to the election of 1834 the administra- 
tion party, again called Democrat, made a desperate 
effort to prevent union between the followers of Clay 
in the west and members of the State-Rights party in 
the east. To this end Rives made a campaign in the 
west. Though it was generally recognized that nulli- 
fication and secession were no longer issues, he praised 
the heroic Union party of South Carolina; expounded 
the Resolutions of 1798 to show wherein they were 
unlike the Nullification doctrines; justified his course 

^Lynchburg Virginian, March 4 and 14, 1833; ibid., Febru- 
ary 28, 1833. 

^Ibid., March 4, 1833. 

219 



220 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

in support of the Force Bill; and drank toasts to the 
President, "who has given effect to the sentiment 'the 
Union, it must be preserved.' "^ 

About the same time Mercer made a trip to the 
west in behalf of the Clay party, and Clay himself 
found it convenient to tarry among the mountaineers 
on his way to and from Washington. The people, 
however, would not be wrought up by appeals to na- 
tionalism or other general principles. They were turn- 
ing again entirely to the practical questions of their 
locality. The following toast to Mercer shows the 
sentiment which was uppermost in their minds: "West- 
ern Virginia! The feeling is awake; the canal boat 
shall bear away the product of our industry, where 
a little while ago, the mountain deer trod with trim 
step. "4 

Meanwhile Jackson's arbitrary conduct in the re- 
moval of the deposits had widened the breach within 
the Union party and increased the zeal of the opposi- 
tion. Although opposed to the recharter of the United 
States Bank, the east did not sanction executive usurpa- 
tion;^ and many state-rights politicians had come to 
regard "a United States Bank" as a necessary evil.^ 
In many counties of the east mass-meetings denounced 
the removals as dangerous to the business interests of 
the country and as an executive usurpation."^ In his 

'Niles Register, XLIV, 61, 78. 
* Ibid., XLV, 131. 

"Wise, Seven Decades of the Union, 136. 
"Niles Register, XLVIII, 249. 

''National Intelligencer, January 2 and 30, 1834; "Calhoun 
Correspondence," Am. Hist. Asso. Rcpt. (1899), II, 335. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 221 

annual message to the Assembly, Governor Tazewell 
condemned them as a scheme intended to promote the 
banking interests of New York and to make the South 
dependent thereon.^ In the Assembly the nationalists 
and state-rights delegates united to pass resolutions 
declaring the removals "a dangerous and alarming 
assumption of power" and asserting the right of 
Congress to a voice in policies of general finance;^ 
and they requested their representatives in Congress 
and instructed their senators to bring about the restora- 
tion of the deposits and to adopt measures to remedy 
the evils occasioned by their removal. ^^ 

Rives refused to obey these instructions and re- 
signed his place in the Senate. Again the nationalists 
and state-rights delegates united to elect his successor, 
B. W. Leigh.ii 

Despite the efforts of the Democrats, the coalition 
had been made between the opposition factions and the 
name Whig adopted by the whole. The election of 
1834 returned a large Whig majority in the Assembly, 
and the coalition held a formal jubilation over this, its 
first victory in the state. Letters of congratulation 
from Clay, Calhoun, Preston, Ewing, and Poindexter 
were features of the occasion. Of this election Cal- 
houn said: "The result has given joy and confidence to 

^Journal, House of Del., 1833-34, 9. 

""Niles Register, XLV, 388, 410. 

'^^ Journal, House of Del, 1833-34, 100, 167. 

"The vote in the House was: Leigh 69; P. P. Barbour 56 
(Journal, 1833-34, 214). One-half of the vote given Leigh came 
from west of the Blue Ridge. See Washington and Lee Hist. 
Papers, No. 5, p. 109. 



222 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

those who supported the side of constitutional lib- 
erty."i2 

The accompanying map shows the party affiliations 
of the delegates elected to the House of Delegates of 
1834-35. The union between the state-rights voters 
and the nationalists enabled the opposition to carry an 
unbroken line of counties from the Atlantic to the 
Ohio along the James and Kanawha rivers. Appar- 
ently the nationalistic wing of the Whig party was the 
stronger; almost one-half of the Whig delegates came 
from west of the Blue Ridge, and a large portion of 
the other half came from counties strongly national- 
istic. For the most part the mountain districts of the 
west elected Democrats, as did those counties of the 
east which were under the influence of able leaders of 
the administration party. The Democratic counties 
in north-central Piedmont were in the bailiwick of 
P. P. Barbour, W. C. Rives, Thomas Ritchie, and 
Andrew Stevenson.^ ^ 

It was with difficulty, however, that the large Whig 
majority secured the re-election of Leigh to the United 
States Senate.^* The conflict between the incongruous 
elements in the party, which continued through its 
whole lifetime, first manifested itself on this occasion. 
Leigh's ardent devotion to state rights and his record 
in the constitutional convention of 1829-30 rendered 
him unpopular in the west, where some Whig counties 

^National Intelligencer, July 10, 1834. 

"This map is made from data taken from the National In- 
telligencer, May 31, 1834. 

"The vote on joint ballot was: Leigh 85; Rives 81 (lournal, 
House of Del., 1834-35, no). 







£ 

a 






c 
a. 

W 


























































J 




PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 223 

instructed their delegates in the Assembly to vote 
against his re-election.^^ To defeat him an effort was 
made to refer the choice of a senator to a vote of the 
people. Of the efforts to re-elect Leigh, James Mc- 
Dowell, of Rockbridge County, said : ''The election 
was a bitter one and gave rise to a far deeper resent- 
ment than I have ever seen in the Legislature."^^ 

The differences within the Whig party made its 
rule short. It had not yet wrought its conflicting ele- 
ments into a working party. In vain the Richmojid 
Whig praised "the ever memorable and blessed family 
compact which gave quiet to South Carolina, preserved 
the peace and integrity of the states, and tempered the 
harsh operation of the tariff; in vain it insisted that 
the Whigs are agreed in an ardent attachment to the 
institutions of our counti*y and in a deep devotion to 
the Union. "^^ The zealous efforts of Rives, Ritchie, 
and McDowell, the dissatisfaction of the west with 
the election of Leigh to the United States Senate, and 
the abolition agitation brought defeat to the Whig 
party in the elections of 1835. The Democrats elected 
a large majority to the Assembly and seventeen of the 
twenty-one representatives in Congress. This election 

^^ Niles Register, XLVIII, 130. In answer to the objections 
raised vlo his re-election Leigh said : "The charge of aristocracy 
has been raised against me, founded I am quite sure on no other 
ground than the course I took in the convention of 1829-30." 
See National Intelligencer, September 9, 1835. 

^"^ Washington and Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, p. 119; National 
Intelligencer, February 21, 1835. 

^''National Intelligencer, March 24, 1835. This quotation is 
from an "Address of the Richmond Whig to the People of Vir- 
ginia." 



224 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

marked the first appearance of the "Tenth Legion" of 
the Valley, the German ''invincibles," as a factor in 
Virginia politics. ^^ 

The Democrats retained power three years, and 
completely reversed the Whig policy. Ejected officials 
were restored to their places ; resolutions censuring the 
President for the removal of the deposits w^ere re- 
scinded; and Tyler and Leigh were instructed to vote 
for the expunging resolutions.^^ Tyler refused to 
obey, resigned, and was succeeded by W. C. Rives. 
Leigh, however, refused to resign until the fight over 
the expunging resolutions was ended and then did so 
only because of business reasons.^^ His course met 
disapproval among state-rights Whigs, who believed 
in the right of instruction, aroused the west, and doubt- 
less did much to increase the strength of the adminis- 
tration party throughout the state. ^^ Leigh was suc- 
ceeded by Judge R. E. Parker, a Democrat. 

The year 1835 witnessed the beginning of the 
movement for the abolition of slavery and the slave 
trade in the District of Columbia. From the first 
both parties in the east, and especially the Whigs, 
opposed the abolition agitation. During the summer of 
1835 most of the counties east of the Blue Ridge held 
one or more mass-meetings to denounce the abolition- 

^^ The Whigs elected no representatives to Congress from 
west of the Blue Ridge (National Intelligencer, May 15. 1835; 
Niles Register, XLVIII, 186). 

^'Journal, House of Del., 1835-36, 26, 37, 55, 100. 

'^Ibid., 1836-37, 18. 

"Wise, Seven Decades of the Union, 138; Tyler, Letters and 
Times of the Tylers, I, 536-38. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-S0 225 

ists, to memorialize the Assembly regarding them, and 
to protest against the abolition of negro slavery in the 
District of Columbia.^^ These memorials insisted that 
negro slavery was not the cause of Virginia's indus- 
trial decline, but that unscientific cultivation and ex- 
cessive migrations had produced her ''turned-out" land 
and "gullied" hillsides. The agricultural societies 
advised the state to foster its "peculiar institutions" 
and asked that a chair of agriculture be established in 
the State University. ^^ It was at this period and on 
this issue that a number of young men, most prominent 
of whom were: Henry A. Wise, R. M. T. Hunter, and 
John Y. Mason, came into prominence in the east as 
the defenders of negro slavery and as disciples of John 
C. Calhoun. "Slavery interwoven with our political 
institutions," said Wise, "is guaranteed by our Con- 
stitution, and its consequence must be borne by our 
northern brethren as resulting from our system of 
government, and they cannot attack the institution of 
slavery without attacking the institutions of our coun- 
try, our safety, our welfare."-^ 

On the other hand, members of both parties in the 
west were at first inclined to criticize the attitude of 
the extreme state-rights men toward the abolitionists. 
Opposition to the pro-slavery agitation caused many 
western Whigs to join the administration party, con- 

22 No such memorials were sent to the Assembly from counties 
west of the Blue Ridge {Journal, House of Del, 1835-36, Doc. 
No. 12, pp. 1-25). 

^Uhid., Doc. No. 30. 

-''Register of Cong. Debates, XI, 1399. See also "Calhoun 
Correspondence," in Am. Hist. Asso. Kept. (1899), II, 356. 



226 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

tributing to its victory of 1835. Many voters in the 
west believed that Calhoun was bent upon "picking a 
quarrel with the North about negroes." The Lynch- 
burg Virginian, the chief organ of the Whig party in 
that section, insisted that the nullifiers and seceders 
had accepted the Compromise Tariff, ''not for the pur- 
pose of establishing peace and tranquillity but with the 
design of changing their weapon of attack," and "that 
the subject which they are now wielding, in aid of their 
settled purpose to dissolve the Union and erect a south- 
ern confederacy, is slavery. "^^ The western press 
opposed any and all attempts to call a southern conven- 
tion to devise means of co-operative action against the 
abolitionists.^^ 

But when the abolition agitation began to endanger 
the perpetuity of the Union, the sentiment in western 
Virginia toward the abolitionists changed. With the 
inhabitants of this section, as with those of Massa- 
chusetts, who destroyed the abolitionist printing-presses 
and dragged Garrison through the streets of Boston, 
and those of Illinois, who murdered Lovejoy, the 
Union was sacred and not to be endangered by fanatics. 
Under these conditions the Democratic party, which 
Jackson had made to stand for the Union, and the 
southern leaders who had committed themselves 
against abolition, increased in popularity in the west. 
Leaders like James McDowell, C. J. Faulkner, Jr., 
W. B. Preston, and G. W. Summers now tried to right 
themselves with the east on the subject of slavery and 

"^Lynchburg Virginian, April 29, 1833. 

^National Intelligencer, quoting the Lexington (Va.) Gazette. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 227 

to dispel the alarm occasioned by their utterances in 
the constitutional convention of 1829-30 and the 
slavery debate of 1831-32. It now became possible 
for such leaders to defend the Union in the same 
breath that they denounced the abolitionists. This 
largely explains the Democratic strength in west- 
ern Virginia. The following from an address, 
delivered at Princeton College, New Jersey, in 1838, 
by James McDowell, shows the position which these 
leaders were taking upon the question of slavery: 
^'Leave slavery to the wisdom of those upon whom the 
providence of God and the constitution have cast it. 
Furious and mad philanthropy will bring destruction; 
a stop should come before it is impossible. "^"^ In this 
frame of mind the west voted with the east to suppress 
incendiary publications, for the "gag resolutions," and 
against the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in 
the District of Columbia. 

The abolition agitation and local differences pre- 
vented the union of the Whig party in the presidential 
election of 1836. The eastern wing favored Hugh L. 
White, of Tennessee, who was not a Whig, for presi- 
dent, and John Tyler for vice-president. Thus no 
concession was to be made to the west which desired 
either Harrison or Clay, preferably the latter, for 
president, and was not enthusiastic over Tyler for the 
second place. Finally an unsatisfactory compromise 
was agreed upon whereby an electoral ticket, pledged 

^ Washington and Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, p. 126. McDowell 
was an alumnus of Princeton. His speech on this occasion was 
entitled "West Augusta." 



228 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

to support either White or Harrison and favorable to 
Tyler, was placed in the field. -^ 

The Democrats, however, were scarcely more 
united. Ritchie and other leaders of the eastern wing 
were not enthusiastic over Van Buren and bitterly 
opposed Johnson for the second place, but a more sat- 
isfactory solution than that reached by the Whigs was 
agreed upon. After a vain effort to commit Van 
Buren on the subject of abolition, the east indorsed 
him for president and the west agreed to support 
William Smith of Alabama for vice-president. This 
was a mutual concession, whereas the opposing wings 
in the Whig party had not reached accord. 

After a dull campaign Van Buren carried the state 
by seven thousand majority. ^^ His vote was unusually 
large in counties west of the Blue Ridge, especially 
those of the Tenth Legion where the German element 
rallied to his support. Only seven counties west of the 
mountains gave majorities against him. The Whig 
defeat was attributed to a falling-off in their vote in 
the west and the Northern Neck.^^ 

The financial panic of 1837 and the legislation in- 
tended to restore a healthful currency brought a breach 
in both the Whig and Democratic parties in Virginia. 
Rives and his "conservative" following refused to 
support Van Buren's scheme for an independent 
treasury and continued to favor a regulated system of 

'^ Miles Register, XLIX, 290; Wise, Life of Wise, 66; Na- 
ttonal Intelligencer, October 5, 1836. 

^ Niles Register, LIX, 229. 

^National Intelligencer, November 19, 1836. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 229 

deposits in the state banks. Rives believed that the 
general government ought to aid the states in main- 
taining a sound currency and an efficient banking 
system ; that currency good enough for the people was 
good enough for the government ; that the public purse 
should not be intrusted to the custody of the chief 
executive; that the separation of the federal govern- 
ment from banks and banking would impair the co- 
operation between it and the states; and that an 
independent treasury would eventually lead to a re- 
charter of a national bank.^^ For some time the 
conservatives maintained a gwa^f-independent attitude, 
and there was much talk of a third party. The 
Madisonian founded at Washington in August, 1837, 
was thought to be the intended organ of the proposed 
new party. ^^ But the northern conservatives, under 
the leadership of Tallmadge of New York, soon 
joined the Whigs, and Rives and his following in 
Virginia did likewise. On the other hand, R. M. T. 
Hunter, W. F. Gordon, L. W. Tazewell, and others of 
the strict construction wing of the Whig party fol- 
lowed their idol, Calhoun, into the administration 
party, which was daily growing into greater harmony 
with the South on the subject of abolition.^^ 

These changes in issues and party alignments made 
union and success possible for the Whigs. They swept 

^^ See his letter, signed "Camillus," in National Intelligencer, 
August 16, 1837. 

^^Ibid., August 23, 1837. 

^^ Niles Register, LVI, 411; "Calhoun Correspondence," Am. 
Hist. Asso. Rept. (1899), II, 436. 



230 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the state in the election of 1838,^^ and retained control 
of the Assembly for four years. Wise dates the 
formation of the Whig party in Virginia from the 
year 1838.^'^ 

The Whig rule worked a continuation of the sec- 
tional differences. Rives's term as United States 
senator expired March 4, 1839, t>ut the west desired 
his re-election, while the east, led by B. W. Leigh, 
F. W. Gilmer, and W. S. Archer, desired the more 
orthodox Whig, John Tyler, to succeed him. The 
contest between Rives and Tyler was waged for two 
years, and for that period Virginia had only one 
senator in Congress. Mr. Wise to the contrary not- 
withstanding,^^ it ended only after Tyler's nomination 
to the vice-presidency. On several occasions Rives 
was near a re-election, but just enough of the leaders 
remained aloof from him to prevent it. Although he 
refused to attend a reconciliation dinner Leigh com- 
mended Rives's independence in repudiating Van 
Buren, but he insisted that it was only a partial atone- 
ment for his errors in supporting the expunging 
resolutions and the removal of the deposits. He also 
believed that Rives should commit himself to the sup- 
port of the Whig candidate for president, in 1840, 
before he could expect that party to return him to the 
Senate. ^"^ 

Both parties went into the election of 1840 with 

^National Intelligencer, May 3, 1838. 
^ Seven Decades of the Union, 157. 
^Ibid., 174. 
^ Niles Register, LVI, 66. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 231 

greater unity than in 1836, though not with entire 
harmony between the sections. The eastern Demo- 
crats reluctantly supported the renomination of Van 
Buren but refused to support R. M. Johnson for the 
vice-presidency. They put forward James K. Polk, 
of Tennessee, for that office and ceased to support him 
only when he declined to be a candidate.^^ On the 
other hand, the eastern Whigs were willing to vote for 
Clay, the choice of the west, for the presidential nom- 
ination, provided the west would support Tyler for the 
vice-presidency. 

The poll called forth an unprecedented vote in 
which Van Buren had a bare majority.^^ He owed 
his success to the heavy vote in the counties wxst of 
the Blue Ridge, which gave him more than three 
thousand majority.^^ A map of this vote by counties 
would be strikingly similar to the map of the Demo- 
cratic and Whig counties as represented in the Assem- 
bly of 1834—35. It would also show the areas of 
Whig strength wdien the party was most powerful in 
Virginia. 

Tyler's opposition to the Whig programme of 
1 84 1 caused his following in Virginia to desert the 
party. For some time they tried to maintain a third 
party, the Madisonian becoming the party organ, but 
their inability to rally a following to Tyler and his 

^Richmond Whig, August 7, 1840. 

^The total vote was 84,223. Van Buren's majority was 1,413 
(Niles Register, LIX, 229). 
"^Ibid., LIX, 294. 



232 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ultimate repudiation by the Whigs drove Wise, Gilmer, 
and their colleagues into the Democratic party. 

The rank and file of the Virginia Whigs, how- 
ever, stood fast. The nationalists of the west were 
exasperated by Tyler's vetoes. They had expected 
and petitioned for an increased duty on iron, salt, and 
woolens.^ ^ The tariff of 1842 received seven affirma- 
tive votes from Virginia, only three of which came 
from east of the Blue Ridge,^^ and the Whig repre- 
sentatives in Congress were not unfriendly to the 
recharter of a national bank. That the course of the 
eastern representatives in support of the tariff was 
determined by factors other than the desire to oppose 
the Democrats is evident from the popular support 
they received. Twenty-two hundred citizens of Rich- 
mond and vicinity signed a petition to Congress pray- 
ing for an increase in the tariff."*^ It is evident that the 
eastern wing of the Whig party became more nation- 
alistic as the eastern wing of the Democratic party 
became more strongly attached to state rights. 

The political readjustments of 1841 and 1842 en- 
abled the Democrats to regain control of the Assem- 
bly"** and to reverse completely the course pursued by 
the Whig assemblies. They refused to receive any 
more of the surplus from the sale of the public lands, 
an act which provoked severe criticism in the Whig 

*^ House Journal, 27 Cong., 2d sess., 532, 611, 617, 680, 793. 
810, 854. 

*^Ibid., 27 Cong., 2d sess., 1107. 

*''^Niles Register, LXII, 288, 302; DeBow, Review, X, 542. 

*^ Miles Register, XLVI, 112, 176. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 233 

counties of the Kanawha Valley i^'^ some favored in- 
structing Rives and Archer out of the Senate ;^^ and 
others encouraged the use of hard money. 

By 1843 n^ost of the prominent leaders residing 
east of the Blue Ridge had become Democrats,^'^ but 
the rank and file of that party continued to reside west 
of the mountains. Notwithstanding these conditions 
Hunter and his political friends inaugurated a move- 
ment to make Calhoun president in 1844 ^^^ the 
Democratic party of Virginia a strictly state-rights 
and pro-slavery party. Hunter's political biography 
of Calhoun w^as scattered broadcast, and there was 
talk of establishing a Calhoun paper in Richmond. 
That such a movement met with opposition goes 
almost without saying. Ritchie remained true to the 
west, which had enabled him to gain so many political 
victories, and continued to favor the renomination of 
Van Buren and the cause of local reform. He was 
frequently accused of keeping Virginia attached to 
the tail of a northern alliance with ''demagogues" 
when "she should be the head of a southern state- 
rights party. "^^ On the other hand, the Calhoun party 
was accused of treason to the regular Democratic 
party and of a desire to dissolve the Union. The fol- 
lowing comment by the Washington Globe upon the 
Calhoun party was indorsed by the Enquirer and the 

*^ Kanawha Republican, March 19, 1842. 
^"^ Journal, House of Del, 1842-43, 90. 
*''Wise, Life of Wise, 103-5. 

*« "Calhoun Correspondence," Am, Hist. Asso. Kept. (1899), 
H, 527, 536, 602. 



234 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

western prints : ''Some of the would be leaders may 
kick out of the traces and give us some trouble, but 
they will soon be run over rough shod to rise no more 
in political preferment. "^^ 

These differences in the Democratic party enabled 
the Whigs to gain a majority in the House of Dele- 
gates elected in 1844, but the holdovers in the Senate 
prevented them from controlling the Assembly on joint 
ballot. The prospect of defeat in the presidential elec- 
tion was not a sufficient incentive to produce immedi- 
ate union in the Democratic party. As the presidential 
canvass continued, Van Buren's renomination became 
generally conceded. Accordingly his friends tried to 
allay the opposition to him in Virginia by securing an 
agreement from the Calhoun men to support the nom- 
inee of the national convention. "Harmony," they 
agreed, ''is necessary to defeat Clay." But the fol- 
lowers of Calhoun openly declared that Van Buren's 
nomination would necessitate an independent ticket in 
Virginia. Their tenacity was a determining factor in 
the nomination of Polk instead of Van Buren.^^ 

The slogan "Polk and Texas" reunited the Demo- 
cratic party and enabled it to carry the presidential 
contest in the state by almost six thousand majority.^^ 
Ritchie, who now drank toasts to "Calhoun, the presi- 
dent in 1848," went to Washington to become editor of 

"Quoted in the Kanawha Republican, August 26, 1843. 
•""Calhoun Correspondence," in Am. Hist. Asso. Rept. (1899), 
II, 896, 915. 

^"■Niles Register, LXVI, 160, 176; LXVII, 276. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 235 

the Union^- and Calhoun himself believed that the day 
of southern supremacy had returned. He wrote : 'The 
great difficulty has heretofore been with Virginia, 
under the guidance of Mr. Ritchie. His policy has 
been to act in concert with the party in Pennsylvania 
and New York, as the most certain way of succeeding 
in the elections ; and for that purpose to concede some- 
thing of our principles to secure their co-operation. 
The effect has been to detach Virginia, in great 
measure, from the south. "^^ 

The elections of 1845 wiped out the Whig ma- 
jority in the House of Delegates and returned only 
one Whig to Congress.^ ^ The political union between 
the east and the west was almost as perfect as it 
had been in 1835, when the Democrats had carried 
everything. The Assembly of 1845-46 elected Isaac 
Pennybacker, the choice of the west, to succeed Rives 
in the United States Senate.^^ 

The opposition of the Calhoun men to war with 
Mexico brought a breach in the administration party 
and general readjustments in Virginia politics, which 
manifested themselves in the hotly contested elections 
of 1847 for United States senators to succeed Penny- 
backer^^ and Archer. The Whigs wanted to re-elect 

^ Hudson, Journalism in U. S., 238 ; "Calhoun Correspond- 
ence," in Am. Hist. Asso. Rept. (1899), II, 637, 650, 652. 

"Ibid., 663. 

•*The previous Congress contained six Whig representatives 
from Virginia. 

^Journal, House of Del., 1845-46, 20. Pennybacker received 
87 votes ; all others 43. 

°" Pennybacker had died a short time after his election. 



236 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Archer; the administration party favored Governor 
Wm. Smith, and the Calhoun men favored R. M. T. 
Hunter. On the first ballot Archer received 57 votes, 
Smith 50, and Hunter 19. After much balloting the 
eastern Whigs united with the eastern Democrats and 
elected Hunter.^^ To succeed Penny backer the Whigs 
desired G. W. Summers, the administration party 
James McDowell, and the Calhoun men J. M. Mason, 
all residents of the west. The first ballots gave much the 
same vote as the first ballots in the other contest, but 
the same elements which had elected Hunter eventually 
united to elect Mason.^^ The election of Hunter and 
Mason marks the first triumph of Calhoun in Virginia 
politics. Henceforth the sentiment for a united South 
gradually gained ground. McDowell, w^hose great am- 
bition was to reach the United States Senate, attributed 
his defeat on this occasion to his enthusiasm over the 
war with Mexico and to his stand for abolition in the 
slavery debate of 1831-32.^^ 

This readjustment and the general opposition to 
the war with Mexico again threatened the Democratic 
rule in the state. The Whigs gained in the east and 
held their own in the west. The elections of 1847 
resulted in a tie on joint ballot in the Assembly and in 
the election of six Whigs to Congress, four of whom 
came from east of the Blue Ridge. ^^ But the termina- 

" Journal, House of Del., 1846-47, 84-86. 
'^ Ibid., 94-100. 

'* Washington and Lee Hist. Papers, No. 5, p. 145 ; Niles 
Register, LXXII, 144. 

'^Ibid., LXXII, 160, 280, 386. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 237 

tion of the war with Mexico and the agitation over the 
extension of the slave territory, which followed, drove 
the eastern leaders into closer affiliation with the 
Democratic party, enabling it to recover and retain 
control until the Civil War. 

The instability of party organization made the 
presidential election of 1848 uncertain. The eastern 
Whigs made an effort to retain in control the Calhoun 
element of the Democratic party, with which they 
had been co-operating during the war with Mexico. 
Taylor's record as a slave-holder and a non-partisan 
made him popular in eastern Virginia. Accordingly 
the administration Democrats made a special effort to 
increase their strength in the west.^^ In this effort 
they were aided materially by the fact that Cass had 
intermarried with a family of large and influential 
connections in northwestern Virginia. This was pos- 
sibly the determining factor in enabling Cass to carry 
the state. The majority given him was only 1,473,®- 
and the larger part of his vote came from the 
western counties. The tendency to divide the state 
politically into two sections, the western to be Demo- 
cratic, the eastern to be Whig, was more marked in 
this election than in preceding contests. 

During the early years of the period for which the 
political narrative has been given in this chapter, the 
subject of banks was a source of political and sec- 
tional strife. The west desired the incorporation of 
additional independent state banks ; the east desired an 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, June 16, 1848; ibid., July 21, 1848. 
'^Niles Register, LXXV, 108. 



238 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

increase in the capital stock of the banks ah-eady exist- 
ing and the estabhshment of branch banks. To support 
its claims the west argued that independent banks were 
necessary to aid internal improvements, to supply the 
necessary banking facilities, and to prevent monop- 
oly.^^ The east argued that banks were not a panacea 
for all commercial and industrial evils ; that the moun- 
tains could not be leveled by the use of paper currency, 
and that the Bank of Virginia at Richmond should be 
encouraged to take the place of the United States Bank 
in maintaining a stable currency and a wholesome 
restraint upon the other banks. It prevailed in the 
Whig Assembly of 1834-35; its banking capital was 
increased; and a number of branch banks were estab- 
lished in the eastern cities.^^ 

When the Democrats came to power in 1835 they 
did not at first depart from the policy of their prede- 
cessors on the subject of banking. The eastern dele- 
gates were again able to unite and defeat the demands 
of the west for independent state banks. But the panic 
of 1837, the discussion over specie payment, and the 
inability of the west to procure such institutions for 
itself brought hostile feelings on the part of the Demo- 

^^ Journal, House of Del., 1833-34, Doc. No. 2^. 

** In 1834 Virginia had four state banks with an aggregate 
capital of $6,145,000. The Bank of Virginia, located at Richmond 
and incorporated in 1804, had a capital of $3,245,000; the Farm- 
ers' Bank, located at Richmond and incorporated in 181 2, had 
$2,000,000 capital ; the Northwestern Bank, located at Wheeling 
and incorporated in 1817, had $360,000 capital; and the Bank of 
the Valley, located at Winchester and incorporated in 181 7, had 
$600,000 capital. See Journal, House of Del., 1834-35, 144. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 239 

cratic assemblies, which were largely composed of 
delegates from the west, toward state banks. Accord- 
ingly the representatives from west of the Blue Ridge 
united to strike the eastern monopoly; the banks and 
branch banks were subjected to rigorous investiga- 
tions; talk of abandoning them entirely was current; 
requests for further increases in their capital stock 
were denied; they were required to pay specie on a 
fixed date or close their doors; and they were for- 
bidden to declare dividends so long as specie was re- 
fused. ^^ 

The Whig legislatures following 1838 were, how- 
ever, more friendly to the state banks. New banks were 
incorporated in the west; issues of smaller denomina- 
tion than five dollars were authorized; requests for 
investigations were refused; state bank notes were 
made a legal tender in the payment of taxes and state 
debts; the acts of the Democratic assemblies, declaring 
bank charters forfeited and imposing other penalties, 
were repealed ; and schemes to incorporate a state bank 
with twenty million dollars capital stock and with 
power to aid in the construction of works of internal 
improvement met with favor.^^ With the establish- 
ment of the Independent Treasury and the failure to 
recharter a national bank, the subject of banking 
ceased to be of importance. 

The subject of internal improvements was an im- 

'^'^Niles Register, LIII ; Journal, House of Del., 1837-38, Doc. 
No. 43. 

««See Acts of Assembly of 1840-41; Niles Register, LIV, 3; 
LVI, 149; Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, II, 28. 



240 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

portant one from a sectional standpoint during this 
period. The James River and Kanawha Company 
received the fostering care of the Whig Assembly of 
1834-35. Loans were made to it; an effort was made 
to use all the income from the internal improvement 
fund in its behalf; and petitions from Democratic 
strongholds for the incorporation of companies which 
might jeopardize its interests were denied. ^^ This 
policy aroused opposition in districts remote from the 
James and Kanawha rivers and thus contributed to 
the Whig defeat of 1835. 

The internal improvement policies pursued by the 
Democratic legislatures from 1835 to 1838 were de- 
termined largely by a desire to conserve party interests. 
The James River and Kanawha Canal Company re- 
ceived little attention and less material assistance, and 
greater interest was given to the construction of rail- 
roads and turnpikes. During this period sixteen turn- 
pike companies were incorporated to carry on works in 
the west;^* $200,000 was appropriated to the Lynch- 
burg and Tennessee Railroad ; the Baltimore and Ohio 
Company was again denied the privilege of construct- 
ing its lines through the Whig counties of central 
Virginia but was promised an appropriation of $1,- 
368,520 provided they were constructed through the 
northwest, a Democratic stronghold ; and almost two 
millions were appropriated to aid in the construction of 
railroads intended to connect the eastern towns and 

^''Journal, House of Del., 1834-35, 103, 181. 

"® Only a few internal improvement companies had been in- 
corporated in the west before this time. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 241 

cities.^^ It is not without significance that practically 
all the appropriations to internal improvement com- 
panies were made to promote works located in sections 
strongly Democratic. 

The hard times following 1837 made it impossible 
for either party to pursue an aggressive internal im- 
provement policy. But a return to good times and 
the expiration of the charters to the Baltimore and 
Ohio Railroad Company and the James River and 
Kanawha Canal Company brought the subject before 
the Whig Assembly of 1844-45. Already a largely 
attended convention, held at Lewisburg, had revised 
the project of connecting the James and the Kanawha 
by a continuous canal ;''^ and their scheme again 
found favor with the Assembly. But the Democratic 
majority in the Senate made it impossible to pro- 
cure an appropriation for that purpose. On the 
other hand, the numerous petitions from the north- 
west praying that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad 
Company be permitted to construct its lines by way 
of Clarksburg and Parkersburg to the Ohio were 
rejected. Instead, the western terminus was fixed 
at Wheeling and the appropriations authorized by 
Democratic assemblies were declared void because of 
failures to comply with stipulated conditions.'^ 

* See Fourth Biennial Report of the Board of Public Works, 
502; Acts of 1836-37 and 1837-38; Xilcs Register, LIT, 115: 
LIII, 352. 

^''Journal, House of Del.. 1844-45. Doc. No. 7; Kananha Re- 
publican, August 13 and 27, 1844. 

'^Journal, House of Del.. 1844-45. Docs. Nos. 13 and 22; 
ibid., 1845-46, Doc. No. 14; Acts of 1844-45. February 19. 



242 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The Democratic legislatures following 1845 com- 
pletely reversed the policies and acts of the Whigs. 
They appropriated to the James River and Kanawha 
Company, it is true, but the appropriations were to be 
used to construct a canal no farther than Buchanan, a 
town in the Valley. Thence railroads were to be con- 
structed to the Tennessee border and to the Ohio River. 
The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company had re- 
fused to accept the restrictions imposed by the Assem- 
bly of 1844-45 and continued to fight for the privi- 
lege to strike the Ohio at a point farther south than 
Wheeling. The citizens of the northwest, except 
those in the Panhandle, generally favored the company 
in its fight and held numerous mass-meetings to memo- 
rialize the Assembly in its behalf.*^^ Some of these 
meetings favored disunion in case the request of the 
company was not granted."^ ^ The fact that it was a 
large Democratic constituency which spoke and that it 
was the Whig policy to keep the Baltimore and Ohio 
Railroad as far north as possible made it necessary to 
conciliate the northwest. Accordingly the Act of 
1845 ^^'^s amended, and the company was permitted 
to construct its lines to a point near Fairmont, thence 
by Grave, or Fishing Creek, to the Ohio, provided, 
however, that it should build a lateral line to Wheel- 
ing. Later an independent company, which soon 
became a part of the Baltimore and Ohio Company, 

''^Niles Register, LXVIII, 68, 254; Journal, House of Del., 
1845-46, Docs. Nos. I, 12, and 22; ibid., 1846-47, Docs. Nos. i 
and 13. 

" Some of these meetings were attended by more than one 
thousand delegates. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 243 

was incorporated to build a road from Grafton to 
Parkersburg over practically the same route that the 
Baltimore and Ohio Company had desired for its main 
lineJ4 

The Democratic legislatures from 1847 to 1850 
were very liberal in appropriations for works of in- 
ternal improvements, which were frequently made, 
however, to secure party unity and strength. Ardent 
pro-slavery men, such as Wise and Hunter, desired 
to conciliate the west by granting many of its requests. 
More than two millions were appropriated to the Vir- 
ginia and Tennessee Railroad ; and other lines, both in 
the east and the west, received actual or promised aid. 
More turnpike companies, with power to construct 
roads in western Virgina, were incorporated during 
these years than had been incorporated during the 
period of Democratic rule from 1835 to 1838.'^^ 

Liberality to the west aroused opposition in the 
extreme east. Speaking of the appropriations which 
the west was receiving the Norfolk Herald said : 

Laying aside all other considerations and looking only to 
the future commercial elevation of Norfolk, her annexation to 
North Carolina is certainly a consummation devoutly to be 
wished; for while North Carolina has the ability to build up 
Norfolk and would take a pride in doing it— it is not now in 
the power of Virginia to make her of much greater commer- 
cial importance than she now is." 

'*Acts of Assembly of 1850-51, 69. 

™See Forty-first Report of the Board of Public Works, 302; 
Niles Register, LXXIV, 206. 

''^Richmond Whig, April 17, 1849. 



244 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The most important sectional issue in Virginia 
during this period, however, was that which arose out 
of the movement for a united slave-holding South. 
Although the Virginia congressmen united to oppose 
the Wilmot Proviso, the abolition of the slave trade, 
and abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,^^ 
leading citizens of western Virginia were at the same 
time trying to devise means to rid that portion of the 
state of negro slavery. Dr. Henry Ruffner, Samuel 
McDowell Moore, John Letcher, and others came for- 
ward with a scheme wiiich proposed gradual emanci- 
pation, by which all the slaves in the state were 
eventually to be confined to counties east of the Blue 
Ridge. This scheme was first debated in the Franklin 
Society at Lexington in 1847. ^^ then took form in 
a pamphlet entitled, An Address to the People of 
West Virginia by a Slave-Holder of West VirginiaJ^ 
The purpose of the pamphlet was to show that slavery 
is injurious to the public welfare and ''that it may be 
gradually abolished without detriment to the rights 
and interests of slave-holders." Like the contemporary 
writings of Cassius M. Clay and Thomas F. Marshall, 
both of Kentucky, it contained elaborate comparisons 
wherein the slave-holding were pitted against the non- 
slaveholding states to prove that slavery was an eco- 
nomic evil. 

^^ Journal, House of Del., 1848-49, 171, 174; ibid., 1849-50, 
147, 220, 221 ; Niles Register, LXXV, 73. 

''^ Dr. Ruffner, president of W^ashington and Lee, was the 
author of this pamphlet. It is commonly spoken of as the 
"Ruffner pamphlet." 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 245 

Of the movement Dr. Ruffner at a later time said : 

No one, so far as I remember, took the abolitionist ground 
that slaveholding is a sin and ought for that reason to be 
abolished. With us it was merely a question of expediency 
and was argued with special reference to the interest of West 
Virginia. 

Of his pamphlet's reception he said : 

When the scheme was circulated by mail and otherwise 
through West Virginia, we soon perceived that most of the 
editors and publishers in the Valley would not embark with 
us on an enterprise of doubtful success. They objected to our 
movement as ill-timed while northern abolitionism was raging. 
.... West of the Alleghenies the pamphlet was better re- 
ceived; but in East Virginia some papers denounced it as 
abolitionist.'" 

The movement for an extension of slave territory 
took quite a different form in eastern Virginia. While 
various plans for limiting and restricting slave terri- 
tory were being discussed in Congress and elsewhere 
many citizens of that section engaged in talk of seces- 
sion and the formation of a southern confederacy. In 
1850 the Assembly, under the control of the east, 
passed resolutions which recommended that the state 
send delegates to the proposed Nashville Convention 
and that the people assemble in district conventions to 
elect delegates, intrusted with sovereign power, to a 
general convention of the southern states. ^"^ Of the 
conditions there the Richmond Enquirer said : 

The two great political parties have ceased to exist in the 
southern states so far as the present slavery issue is concerned. 

''^Kanawha Valley Star, August 3, 1858. 

^National Intelligencer (weekly), February 16, 1850. 



246 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

United they will prepare, consult, combine for prompt and de- 
cisive action. With united voices, we are compelled to make 
a few exceptions, but they will, we hope, soon cease to be so 
counted"^ — with united voices they proclaim in the language 
of the Virginia resolutions, passed a few days since, "the 
preservation of the Union if we can, the preservation of our 
own rights if we cannot." This is the temper of the South ; 
this is the temper becoming the inheritors of rights acquired 
for freemen by the blood of freemen. "Thus far shalt thou 
come and no farther," or else the proud waves of northern 
aggression shall float the zvrcck of the Constitution. 

The only Union we love is a confederacy of equals ; for as 
equals we entered the Union ; we will remain in it on no other 
condition. This is the deliberate conclusion of the Southern 
people. There is no hesitancy, no reservation, no escape.®^ 

When the Nashville Convention met, Judg e Beve rly 
Tucker, professor of constitutional and common law 
at William and Mary, addressed it in behalf of dis- 
union and the formation of a southern confederacy.^^ 
For the first time the masses of the east united with 
their leaders to defend negro slavery as an economic 
good and to assert their constitutional right to carry 
slave property into any and all territory. Numerous 
southern rights associations were organized, and many 
counties held mass-meetings to encourage the call of a 
southern convention and the formation of a southern 
confederacy.^^ 

®^ Many Whigs in the east did not support this extreme view. 
See Richmond Whig, February 14, 1850. 

**- Quoted in the National Intelligencer (weekly), February 
16, 1850. 

^Petersburg Intelligencer, July 27, 1850. See also National 
Intelligencer, August 3, 1850. 

^Richmond Whig, May 17, 1850; ibid., Janua-ry 15 and 29, 
1850; ibid., February i, 1850. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 247 

As the danger of secession became imminent west- 
ern Virginia took practically the same stand it had 
taken when Nullification was at its zenith. Had seces- 
sion come in 1850, there can be little doubt that this 
part of Virginia was then ready to take the same step 
it took in 1861. The union sentiment there in 1850 
can be determined from a few quotations from the 
leading newspapers. The Harrisonburg Republican 
believed that "the best possible means .... for 
security to the peculiar institutions of the South are to 
be found in the Constitution of the United States."^^ 
"The proposed southern convention we look upon," 
said the editor of the Leesburg Washingtonian, "as a 
dangerous movement fraught w^ith more serious 
danger to the prosperity of our glorious Union than 
almost anything now agitating our country." 

"It w^ould be mainly composed of 'Hotspurs' of 
the South, from whose hasty and rash action nothing 
but evil can result. "^^ 

The editor of the Kanazvha (Kanawha County) 
Republican asked: "What good has resulted to the 
State or the Union from all the resolutions upon fed- 
eral relations passed by our legislature from '98 to 
the present time?" and added, "Had the time and 
attention devoted to the affairs of the General Gov- 
ernment .... been devoted to devise means of 
developing the resources of the state and educating 
the people, we would not say that she would not 
now occupy the first rank among the states of the 

^Harrisonburg Republican, February 16, 1850. 
^Quoted in the National Intelligencer, March 2, 1850. 



248 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Union," and the Martinshnrg Gazette asked those 
who contemplated secession to ''go to the battle fields 
of Bunker Hill, of Bennington, of Saratoga, and 
of Yorktown, to visit the blood stained plains of 
Brandywine, to stand before the tomb of Washington, 
to call up the spirit of the Marions, Sumters, and 
Pinckneys, and listen to the united voice of all, saying 
in the tones of thunder, 'Liberty and Union.' "^" 

Many western counties held mass-meetings, in 
which party lines were broken down, to protest against 
secession and to indorse the action of those who op- 
posed it. Many such assemblies met on the anniversary 
of Washington's birthday and quoted copiously, in the 
resolutions passed, from his farewell address.^^ Citi- 
zens of Mason County resolved, 

That, as a portion of the people of the 14th congressional dis- 
trict, a part of West Augusta, on whose mountains Washington 
contemplated, if driven to extremities, to make his last stand 
and plant his last banner in defense of the liberties of his 
country, we are prepared in conformity with the parting advice 
of that same Washington to stand by the Union ; and living 
in the line between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states, 
which makes it certain that in the event of the dissolution of 
the Union, we shall be placed in the position of borderers ex- 
posed to the feuds and interminable broils, which such a 
position would inevitably entail upon us, a regard for the 
safety of our firesides, not less than the high impulses of 
patriotism, the glorious recollection of the past, and the high 
anticipations of the future, will induce us to adhere unswerv- 
ingly to this resolution.^ 

^^ See National Intelligencer (weekly), March 2, 1850. 
*^ Ibid., February 16, 1850; ibid., March 2, 1850. 
^ Ibid., March 19, 1850. 



PARTIES IN WHIG PERIOD, 1834-50 249 

The patriotic devotion of the west to the Union did 
much to produce moderation in the east in 1850. Cal- 
houn's agent, Mr. Cralle, who made a visit to the west 
to determine its sentiments, wrote as follows : ^'Mc- 
Dowell .... reflects but too faithfully the sentiment 
of the west generally. "^^ Mr. Ruffin, of the Albe- 
marle Southern Rights Association, opposed Virginia's 
sending delegates to the proposed Nashville Conven- 
tion, because ''the recommendation of the Legislature 
had not been responded to by a single county west of 
the Blue Ridge except Jefferson."^^ ''Beyond the 
mountains," said the Richmond Whig, "both parties 
have but one voice. The Parkershurg Gazette, the 
Kanawha Republican, the Lewisburg Chronicle, the 
Harrisonburg Republican, and the Martinsbiirg Re- 
publican are strongly opposed to it.^^ The latter 
paper. Democrat, observes 'this move has not origi- 
nated with the people, and to say the least of it . . . . 
it is an imprudent step.' "^^ 

When the compromise of 1850 was agreed upon 
most eastern Democrats united with the Whigs to 
observe the short truce which it declared. Judge 
Tucker's speech before the Nashville Convention was 
severely criticized f"^ the Richmond Enquirer vied with 

^"Calhoun Correspondence," Am. Hist. Asso. Rept. (1899), 
II, 1200, 1201. 

^^ Richmond Whig, May 17, 1850. 

°^ The Nashville Convention. 

^^ Richmond Whig, January 29, 1850. 

^Petersburg Intelligencer, July 27, 1850; National Intelli- 
gencer, August 3, 1850. 



250 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the Richmond Whig in its professions of devotion to 
the Union ;^^ with only one or two dissenting voices 
the Assembly of 1850-51 disapproved the movement in 
South Carolina for a southern convention, and, while 
it acknowledged that ''a diversity of opinion existed 
in Virginia on the compromise measures, yet it deemed 
it a duty to tell South Carolina that the people were 
unwilling to take any step to destroy the integrity of 
the Union."^6 

^Richmond Enquirer, March 2y, 1851. 
•"^Ihid.; Acts of Assembly of 1850-51, 201. 



CHAPTER VIII 
THE REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 

During the two decades following 1830, population 
and wealth increased rapidly in western Virginia. The 
construction of turnpikes and railroads in the trans- 
Alleghany and the projection of still more of such im- 
provements attracted thither immigrants and aroused 
the interest of speculators in her cheap lands and rich 
natural resources. Eastern and English capitalists 
purchased large tracts of land there and encouraged 
settlers to purchase and occupy them.^ So intense was 
the land craze at times during this period that associa- 
tions, similar to those organized in Wisconsin and else- 
where at the same time, were formed to prevent land 
buyers from overbidding each other and to treat those 
who offended their regulations to tar and feathers and 
rail rides. ^ Meanwhile capitalists from the middle 
and New England states established small manufac- 
tories in the trans-Alleghany, and immigrants from 
those states either found employment therein or be- 
came teachers and farmers. By 1850 the value of the 
lands in the transmontane country had risen until it 
amounted to only $15,000,000 less than the cash value 
of the lands east of the Blue Ridge. ^ 

^National Intelligencer, June 2, 1835; Niles Register, XLVII, 
234; LXXIII, 71; LXXIV, 228. 
^Ihid., LXII, 387. 
' DeBow, Review, XIII, 194. 

251 



252 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

During these years several colonies of Germans 
found homes along the Little Kanawha, in the North- 
western Panhandle, and in Doddridge and Randolph 
counties.^ So important an element did the Germans 
become in the trans-Alleghany population that resolu- 
tions were introduced in the constitutional convention 
of 1850-51 to have its documents printed in their 
language.^ The census of 1830 gave the counties east 
of the Blue Ridge 57,012 white inhabitants more than 
those to the west; but the census of 1840 showed 
2,172 more whites in the west than in the east, and the 
census of 1850 raised this majority to 90,392. 

The following from the Richmond Enquirer shows 
that the east w^as not w^holly ignorant of the changes 
which were taking place in the west and of its own 
declining powder : 

The section below Tide-water, which was once populous, is 
in many places almost deserted. The property and wealth are 
shifting to other divisions. The section beyond the Alleghany, 
once the resort of the wolf and the bear, is fast filling up with 
an industrious, high-souled, thriving population whose wealth 
is rapidly accumulating and whose rich resources are being 
daily more and more developed.*' 

Under these conditions the west, especially the 
trans-Alleghany, naturally continued its fight for a 
greater share in the government. So long as the east 

* Va. Advocate, August 30, 1843 ; Kauawha Republican, Sep- 
tember 9, 1843; Parkersburg Gazette, August 2:^, 1843. The largest 
and most important of these settlements was the Santa Clara in 
Doddridge County. , 

^Journal, 100, 106, no. 

'July 22, 1845. See also DeBow, Review, XII, 35. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 253 

had had a large white population and paid taxes on 
greater land values than the west, it could consistently 
refuse the latter's claim; but, when the balance was 
turned, a further refusal could be defended only on the 
very dangerous ground that slave property, because of 
its peculiar character, was entitled to a greater voice 
in the government than free white inhabitants/ 

As has been seen, the constitution of 1830 gave 
the Assembly power "after the year 1841, and at 
intervals thereafter of not less than ten years, .... 
two-thirds of each house concurring, to make reappor- 
tionments of Delegates and Senators throughout the 
Commonwealth." In view of its great growth in 
wealth and population, the west fully expected the 
Assembly of 1841-42 to reapportion representation 
on a more equitable basis. Immediately prior to the 
meeting of that Assembly there w^as scarcely a western 
print which did not repeatedly publish editorials con- 
demning that arrangement whereby the west with a 
total white population of 271,000 had only ten 
senators and fifty-six delegates and the east with only 
269,000 had nineteen senators and seventy-eight dele- 
gates,^ and that apportionment whereby 44,097 voters 
residing east of the Blue Ridge were entitled to four- 
teen congressmen and 42,270^ west thereof were given 
only seven. Some of the numerous memorials from 
the western counties threatened that — 

''Journal, House of Del., 1841-42, Doc. No. 8. 

^Niles Register, LXII, 387. 

'Journal, House of Del., 1841-42, Doc. No, 8, p. 14. 



254 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776^1861 

if the remedial action of the General Assembly should be 
withheld, if our appeal to your honorable body is destined to 
bring us to the melancholy that we are without relief in the 
mode provided in the Constitution ; that our eastern brethren 
"feeling power have forgotten right," we shall then be prepared 
to hold solemn council with our fellow citizens sharing with us 
our political degradation.^" 

A special committee of the Assembly of 1841-42 
reported for a reapportionment of representation on 
the suffrage basis/ ^ that is, on the qualified voters of 
the state ; but a minority report made by eastern mem- 
bers advocated the mixed basis, on the ground that 
''persons and property are alike subjects of legislation 
and entitled to like protection. "^^ To the great dis- 
appointment of the western delegates, who manifested 
their feelings by placing in the Journal of the House 
of Delegates a protest signed by fifty of their number, 
the matter was postponed indefinitely.^^ The western 
delegates then tried to force the call of a constitutional 
convention but were again defeated by a sectional vote. 

Defeat only redoubled the determination of the 
westerners. When news of the action of the Assem- 
bly reached them, a large public meeting composed of 
delegates from ten counties in the northwest assem- 
bled at Clarksburg. By a series of resolutions it ex- 
pressed surprise at the refusal of the legislators to 

^° Journal, House of Del., 1841-42, Doc. No. 8; Kanawha Re- 
publican, December 4, 1841 ; Richmond Enquirer, January 6, 18, 
22, and March i, 1842. 

^^ Ibid., January 27, 1842. 

" Ibid. 

^^ Ibid., March 10, 1842; Miles Register, LXII, 32, 80, 87. The 
vote was: ayes 68, noes 56. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 255 

exercise their constitutional power to reapportion 
representation and asked that a poll be taken in the 
trans-Alleghany to determine the sense of the people 
on calling a constitutional convention. ^^ Talk of dis- 
memberment was current, and the separation of Maine 
from Massachusetts was looked to as a precedent. 
Some deemed it impossible, however, to secure the 
admission of western Virginia as a separate state as 
long as Tyler was President. It was currently re- 
ported that he had exercised diligence in sending 
federal troops to aid the governor of Rhode Island in 
putting down insurrection there, because he expected 
soon to be called upon to render a similar service to his 
native state.^^ The editor of the Kanawha Repub- 
lican thought the advantages of separate statehood to 
West Virginians were many and insisted that Virginia 
should not oppose the scheme, because two additional 
senators would thereby be added to the South from 
the new state, ''Appalachia."^^ 

A public meeting at Charleston, Kanawha County, 
appointed a committee of correspondence and called 
upon the people of the western counties to send dele- 
gates to a convention to meet at Lewisburg. This 
meeting suggested also that the west should unite 
politically; that it should, independently "of the Rich- 
mond Junto, of the Lowland Whigs, of the Demo- 
cratic leaders," place a ticket in the field for state 

^* Kanawha Republican, May 7, 1842. 
^'Ibid., June 18, 1842. 
" Ibid. 



256 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

officers; and that James McDowell should be named 
by the west as its candidate for governor. ^^ 

The proposed Lewnsburg Convention met August i, 
1842. Twenty counties w^ere represented by about 
eighty delegates. A state ticket was not placed in the 
field, but animated addresses were made, and resolu- 
tions w^re adopted asking the Assembly to pass a bill, 
submitting to a vote of the people the question of a 
constitutional convention to equalize representation on 
the white basis.^^ 

But by a strictly sectional vote the Assembly of 
1842-43 again defeated a proposal to call a constitu- 
tional convention. With this defeat the west ceased 
to make a united fight for reform; western Whigs and 
Democrats engaged in mutual recriminations; and the 
reform movement ceased to excite alarm in the east. 
The breach in the camp of the reformers was due 
largely to the political acumen of eastern leaders. 
When talk of dismemberment and a united west was 
at its height, Ritchie gave the following warning to 
his henchmen in the west : 

We beg leave to recommend to our republican friends in 
that region to put down every use that may be made of the 
question [representation], as a poHtical engine. Some design- 
ing men may stir it up for party effect — and as a friend from 
the Valley writes us "these men may employ it as a fire-brand 
with which they expect to divide the members of the Demo- 
cratic party in the two great divisions of the state, and at 
length to divert their attention from the great issues which are 

"Kanawha Republican, June 4, 1842; ibid., June 18, 1842. 
^Ibid., August 6, 13, 1842. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 257 

now placed before the country in connection with national 
politics."^' 

When reapportionment again became an issue in 
the west, in 1845, Ritchie and other eastern leaders 
espoused the cause of reform,-'^ but took great care to 
keep control of the movement. They deemed it better 
for their own political well-being to control affairs than 
to permit the voters of the west to unite into an organ- 
ization independent of either national party. Accord- 
ingly the "Tenth Legion" of the Valley was conciliated 
by making James McDowell governor, and the north- 
west, the other Democratic stronghold, by electing 
Isaac Pennybacker to the United States Senate. As 
has been seen in a previous chapter, these sections were 
also favored at this time by appropriations to work of 
internal improvement and acts incorporating internal 
improvement companies. 

After the alliance between the eastern and western 
Democrats the national parties in the west found it 
more difficult to act in harmony. The Whigs of the 
Great Kanawha Valley attributed their political vas- 
salage and inability to secure appropriations to works 
of internal improvement to the fact that the Demo- 
cratic strongholds of the Valley and the northwest 
persisted in voting w^ith the Richmond Junto. Conse- 
quently they refused to vote for a constitutional con- 
vention, when it was favored by Democrats or when 
there was danger of the Democrats making political 
capital of it. Both the bill of 1846-47 and of 1847-48 

^ Ibid., August 6, 1842, quoting the Enquirer. 
'■^^ Richmond Enquirer, July 22, 1845. 



258 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

to take the sense of the people on the call of a consti- 
tutional convention received only a few votes from 
the western Whigs. ^^ 

Believing that reform was inevitable and confident 
of abiHty to direct it, the constitutional convention 
movement soon became popular with the eastern lead- 
ers. They did not desire a change in representation 
but believed that an extension of suffrage and reforms 
in the judicial and executive departments of the 
state government wxre necessary to remedy existing 
abuses.^- Under that ruling whereby persons were 
permitted to vote in any county where they owned a 
freehold worth twenty-five dollars, it had become 
customary for residents of eastern cities to purchase 
small tracts in the surrounding counties and to control 
their politics. In important and close contests resi- 
dents of Richmond frequently collected at Cold Harbor 
and controlled the choice of delegates from Hanover 
County. It is said that by similar means Richmond 
also controlled the choice of delegates from Henrico 
and Chesterfield counties; Fredricksburg, those in 
Stafford and Spottsylvania ; Alexandria, those in Fair- 
fax; and Norfolk City, those in Norfolk and Princess 
Anne counties.^^ Besides, the indefiniteness of the 
constitutional provision regulating suffrage occasioned 
frequent and long-drawn-out contested elections, mak- 

'"^^ Journal, House of Del., 1846-47, 114, 115; ibid., 1847-48, 378. 
^^ See Governor Floyd's message to the Assembly (Journal, 
House of Del., 1849-50, 20). 

^''Chandler, "Hist, of Suffrage in Va.," Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity Studies, XIX, 312. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 259 

ing a more definite law on the subject almost impera- 
tive.24 

Moreover, the eastern Whigs, being a minority 
and, as such, having no control over the election 
machinery, favored an extension of suffrage. They 
frequently attributed Democratic successes to fraudu- 
lent votes and the efforts of corrupt election officials. 
In an important election in Hampshire County they 
alleged that 295 votes had been cast by men who had 
contracted for small holdings, paid no money on them, 
and surrendered their titles to them as soon as the 
election was over. The Richmond Whig insisted that 
an extension of suffrage meant increased strength for 
the minority party. ^^ 

Although actuated by different and in some cases 
conflicting interests the eastern leaders, regardless of 
party, were always able to unite in an effort to control 
the movement for a convention. ^^ Had the west, 
which desired the white basis for its organization, been 
willing to accept the mixed basis instead, it could have 
had a constitutional convention in 1846.^^ But a 
majority of the western delegates then preferred no 
convention to one organized on any other than the 
white basis, while many eastern delegates declared 
that, rather than accept such a basis, they would move 

'^^ Journals of the House of Delegates for the sessions from 
1830 to 1850 devote much space to contested elections. 

'^'"Richmond Whig, May 22, 1849; ibid., February 8, 1850. 

^ Ibid., May 21, 1850; ibid., March 19, 1850. 

""Journal, House of Del, 18^5-46, 143-44; Richmond Enquirer, 
January 31, 1846; ibid., February 20, 1846. 



26o SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776^1861 

for the dismemberment of the state. ^^ The next legis- 
latures contained majorities favorable to a convention, 
but they could not agree on a basis for its organiza- 
tion.^^ 

At length the lack of harmony which prevailed in 
the west enabled the eastern leaders to have their way.^*^ 
Some of the western delegates held out to the last for 
the white basis for its organization, but the convention 
bill, which finally passed in 1850, provided for the 
election of its members on the mixed basis. The pro- 
posed convention was to consist of one hundred and 
thirty-five members to be elected one each from every 
13,151 white inhabitants and every $7,000.24 taxes 
paid into the state treasury. ^^ This apportionment 
gave the east 76 delegates and the west 59. Had an 
apportionment been made on the white basis, tlie east 
would have received 61 delegates and the west 74. 

When the convention bill was submitted to the 
people for ratification the trans- Alleghany made a 
desperate eflfort to defeat it, 29 of its 43 counties giving 
majorities against it. It is significant that no county 
in the Valley voted against it and every eastern county 
except two gave majorities for it. In the east the 
voters were urged to support the bill on the ground 
that the west could not control" the proposed conven- 
tion and that it was then a good time to secure needed 
reforms and to settle the basis question.^- The VaPey 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, February 20, 1846. 

''^ Ibid., January 30, 1847; ibid., January 21, li 

'^ Ibid., December 4, 14, 21, 28, 1849. 

^' Acts of Assembly of 1849-50, 9 ff. 

'^^ Richmond Enquirer, April 18, 1850. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 261 

favored the convention because it had nothing to lose 

by either the white or mixed basis, had hopes of con- 

trolHng it and an earnest desire for reform. Almost 

three-fourths of all the votes cast were given for the 
bill.s3 

The election for delegates to the convention took 
place in August, 1850, and the issue in practically 
every case was the basis of representation. Henry A. 
Wise, of Accomac County, was the only candidate who 
secured an election from a district east of the Blue 
Ridge as a white-basis delegate. This distinction 
brought him great popularity in the west and the ill- 
will of his eastern associates, who branded him ''the 
modern Jack Cade."^^ Although many western coun- 
ties had given majorities for a convention to be 
organized on the mixed basis, each and every one of 
the western districts now elected white-basis men to 
the convention. 

The convention, which is known as the ''Reform 
Convention of 1850-51," met at Richmond in October, 
1850, but adjourned after a few days to await the 
census of that year. It reassembled January 6, 1851, 
and remained in continuous session until August i. 

The basis of representation occupied almost the 
entire time from the middle of February to the 
middle of May. The committee appointed to deter- 
mine the proper basis was unable to agree, twelve of 
its members holding to one basis and twelve to another. 

^ Complete returns for this vote are not available. 
'^*' Richmond Whig. June i, 1850. Wise was for a constitu- 
tional guarantee to prevent the excessive taxation of slave property. 



262 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Accordingly the delegates from each section submitted 
propositions. That proposed by the western delegates 
provided for a House of Delegates of one hundred 
and fifty-six members to be elected biennially and a 
Senate of fifty members to be chosen for four years ; 
both houses were to be elected on the mixed basis; 
and, in 1862 and every ten years thereafter, a re- 
apportionment was to be made on that basis. The 
plan proposed by the eastern delegates provided for a 
House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty-six 
delegates and a Senate of thirty-six; both houses were 
to be elected on the suffrage basis ; and the reappor- 
tionments were to be made on that basis m 1855 and 
every ten years thereafter. ^^ 

It soon became evident that neither of these plans 
nor modifications thereof could be carried. The west 
did not have votes enough to carry the suffrage basis; 
and the east did not dare to force the mixed basis, 
because of a fear that the western delegates would 
withdraw from the convention and begin anew a 
movement for dismemberment.^^ Indeed, it was 
feared that Governor-elect Joseph Johnson, of Har- 
rison County, the first and only governor of Virginia 
elected before the Civil \Var from the trans- Alle- 
ghany, and other leaders from his section were plan- 
ning to withdraw from the convention and to move 
for the division of the state, unless their desires were 
granted. ^"^ 

^■'Journal, Constitutional Convention of 1850-51. See 
Appendix. 

^Richmond Whig, April 9, 1851. ^'^ Ibid., April 9, 1851. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 263 

Accordingly various plans of compromise were 
suggested. John Minor Botts, of Richmond, proposed 
that for the purpose of representation the constitution 
should recognize two grand divisions, one east and the 
other west of the Blue Ridge, and that equal repre- 
sentation in both houses should be given to each.^^ 
This plan provided also for an ad valorem system of 
taxation to be levied upon every species of property, 
except such as might be exempt by a two-thirds vote 
of each house of the legislature. But Botts was forced 
to withdraw his plan to await the action of his con- 
stituents, who were then taking a poll on the basis 
question. Then George W. Summers, of Kanawha 
County, came forward with a proposition from the 
westerners, which provided that a constitution be 
adopted without any mention of the basis of repre- 
sentation and that a poll be taken to allow the people 
to decide between the suffrage and mixed basis. ^^ 
This plan was rejected by the eastern members. 

It now seemed certain that the mixed basis would 
carry, but protests and petitions began to pour in from 
the west in such numbers that the eastern delegates 
were again reminded of the danger which such action 
meant to the integrity of the state. ^"^ Accordingly 
attempts at compromise were again resorted to, but a 
comparison of the plans submitted shows that neither 
side conceded anything. Indeed the western delegates 

^ Ibid., April 22, 1851 ; Journal, Constitutional Convention of 
1S50-51, Appendix. 

^ Ibid., Appendix. 

^Richmond Whig, May 27, 1851. 



264 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

became more vehement than ever, and asserted them- 
selves by a series of caucus resolutions, which declined 
any compromise, and which did not eventually provide 
for the suffrage basis or a vote of the people on the 
basis question. 

To avert the impending danger of dismemberment 
Mr. Martin, of Henry County, a mixed-basis man, 
moved that a committee of eight, four from the west 
and four from the east, be elected by the convention 
to provide a compromised^ This proposition carried, 
and on May 15, the committee thus chosen reported in 
favor of a House of Delegates of one hundred and 
fifty members, eighty-two from the west and sixty- 
eight from the east, and a Senate of fifty, thirty from 
the east and twenty from the west. It also provided 
for a reapportionment in 1865 ^^^ ^^^' submitting 
both the mixed and suffrage basis to a vote of the 
people, should the Assembly at that time fail to agree. 
This plan was also rejected: ayes 55, noes 54-^^ 

The proceedings now became more uncertain. 
Plan after plan of compromise was submitted, but 
each received only a passing notice and was in turn 
rejected. Finally Mr. Chilton came forward with a 
modification of the report of the Committee of Eight. 
The number provided therein for each house was to 

*^ Journal, 206. The members of the committee were G. W. 
Summers, of Kanawha ; Wm. Martin, of Henry ; G. A. Wingfield, 
of Campbell ; Wm. Lucas, of Jefiferson ; L. C. H. Finney, of 
Accomac ; A. F. Caperton, of Monroe ; Samuel Chilton, of Fauquier ; 
and John Letcher, of Rockbridge. 

*' Journal, Constitutional Convention of 1850-51, Appendix. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 265 

remain unchanged; but, should the legislature in 1865 
fail to reapportion representation, the governor was 
required to submit to the vote of the people four 
propositions, viz., (i) the suffrage basis, (2) the 
mixed basis, (3) the white population basis, and 
(4) the taxation basis. This plan was carried in 
the committee of the whole: ayes 55, noes 48, 
and was accepted by the convention with the follow- 
ing modifications, thus becoming a part of the con- 
stitution: should the legislature of 1865 ^^il to agree 
on a reapportionment, each house was required to 
submit a plan to the governor, who should cause a 
vote to be taken thereon ; should the legislature neither 
apportion representation nor propose plans, the gov- 
ernor was required to submit the following proposi- 
tions to the voters: (i) the suffrage basis, (2) the 
mixed basis, (3) the taxation basis for the Senate and 
the suffrage basis for the House; and should none of 
these propositions receive a majority of the vot?s cast, 
the two having the largest number were to be again 
submitted. The number of delegates was also in- 
creased from one hundred and fifty to one hundred 
and fifty-two, each section being granted one"*^ addi- 
tional. 

The questions w^hich arose in connection with 
suffrage, internal improvements, and the manner of 
electing the chief executive, the judges, and the county 
officials also occasioned sectional differences. The 
w^estern delegates desired an extension of suffrage to 
every white man of the age of twenty-one and up- 

**Poore, Charters and Constitutions ^ II, ig^S' 



266 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ward.^^ While many, if not most of the eastern dele- 
gates favored a similar extension, some desired a 
small property qualification, and still others the free- 
hold system as it existed prior to 1830.^^ The western 
delegates also favored electing the Board of Public 
Works, the governor, judges, and county officials by 
popular vote."*^ The eastern delegates did not oppose 
this manner of election for the governor^^ and county 
officials but opposed it for the Board of Public Works 
and judges. The convention settled these matters by 
extending suffrage to "every white male citizen of the 
commonwealth of the age of twenty-one years" with 
the usual exception of paupers, etc., and the members 
of the Board of Public Works, the governor, judges, 
and county officials were made elective by the voters. 
Of the secondary issues, however, the most im- 
portant from a sectional standpoint were those which 
arose in connection with taxation and appropriations. 
The chief motive, on the part of the eastern delegates, 
for refusing the white basis was the fear that the west 
would use its political power thus gained to impose 
taxes upon slave property to be used in the construc- 
tion of works of internal improvements. For the pur- 
pose of raising revenue and making appropriations 

** Journal, Constitutional Convention of 1850-51, 46, 310. 

*^Ibid., 254; Richmond Whig, June 21, 1850; ibid., July 30, 
1850. 

*^Ihid., July 30, 1850. 

*^ Mr. Watts, of Norfolk County, proposed to divide the state 
into two gubernatorial districts, one east, the other west of the 
Blue Ridge, and to elect the governor alternately from them 
{Journal, Constitutional Convention of 1850-51, 295). 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 267 

W. O. Goode, of Mecklenburg, proposed that the 
House of Delegates and the Senate be divided into 
two chambers each, one composed of members from 
east of the Bkie Ridge, the other of members from 
west thereof, and that all revenue bills should require 
a majority of each chamber for passage. ^^ The east- 
ern members insisted that all property taxes should be 
ad valorem and that no one species should be taxed 
higher than another, but they were unwilling that 
slaves under twelve years of age should be taxed at all. 
Summers moved to strike the w^ord "years" from the 
resolution exempting them and to insert instead 
''slaves shall be taxed at an ad valorem rate not to 
exceed that on land." This amendment was defeated 
by a strictly sectional vote: ayes 48, noes 61.^^ 

In the west the provisions of the new constitution 
regulating taxation were its most objectionable fea- 
tures. When representation, suffrage, and general re- 
form ceased to be issues there, as they did shortly 
after 1850, the subject of taxation became the chief 
source of difference between the east and the west. 
The constitution provided for an ad valorem tax on 
all property according to its value, but negro slaves 
under twelve years of age were exempt, and slaves 
twelve years old and upward were to be taxed per 
capita at not more than the tax on land worth three 
hundred dollars. But a capitation tax^^ equal to the 

"^Ihid., 106. "^ Ibid., 328. 

^° One-half of the capitation tax was to be appropriated to 
purposes of education in the primary free schools. It was an 
effort to impose the expense of these institutions on the west 
which desired them most. 



268 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

tax levied on land valued at $200 was to be levied 
upon every white male twenty-one years of age, 
and the legislature was given power, which it later 
exercised, to levy taxes on incomes, salaries, and 
licenses. ^^ The inhabitants of the west did not object 
to the ad valorem system of taxation, but they never 
became reconciled to that arrangement whereby the 
small farmer paid taxes on his calves and colts and the 
plantation-owner paid nothing on his young negroes 
and only a small amount on his prime field hands. As 
slaves continued to increase in value during the years 
immediately preceding the Civil War the discrimina- 
tion became more noticeable and more objectionable.^^ 
The debates of the Reform Conventions^ repeated 
so many of the arguments made in 1829-30 that it is 
not necessary again to go into them in detail. There 
are, however, striking points of difference between the 
arguments produced on the two occasions. The re- 
formers of 1850-51 made less use of the Bill of Rights 
and the precepts of the fathers; they made the in- 
creasing wealth and population of the west their chief 
plea for a greater voice in the government; the west- 
erners were now able to meet the charge of radicalism 
with the countercharge that some of the eastern dele- 

" Poore, Charters and Constitiitious, II, 1928; Richmond 
Times, July 27, 185 1. 

'^Wheeling Intelligencer, May 3, i860. 

" The newspapers furnish the chief source of information for 
these debates. The debate on representation may be had in volume 
form and many of the individual speeches were published in 
pamphlet form. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 269 

gates were ''self-styled infinite radicals" bent on secur- 
ing their own interests at the sacrifice of political 
principles and theories ;^^ they now appealed to 
sentiments of patriotism instead of to metaphysical 
abstractions as in 1829-30; their speeches abound in 
denunciations of abolitionists and of promises of fidel- 
ity to Virginia and her "peculiar institutions" should 
political equality be extended to them ; but most of the 
westerners sounded a note of warning when the mixed 
basis was mentioned and when it was proposed to dis- 
criminate in favor of slave property as a subject of 
taxation. 

Can it be expected [said Willey of Monongalia County] 
that men will ardently and cordially support negro slavery 
when by so doing they are virtually cherishing the property 
which is making slaves of themselves? What will be the result? 
It is impossible that the morbid, pseudo-philanthropic spirit of 
northern abolitionism should ever find a resting-place in Vir- 
ginia. But will not hostility to slavery be engendered by the 
incorporation of such a principle into the Constitution? Your 
slaves, by this principle, drive us from the common place of 
equal rights, and usurp our place. Will the spirit of free men 
endure it? Never! Either the principle must be abolished, or 
you will excite a species of political abolition against property 
itself. You will compel us to assume an attitude of antagonism 
towards you, or towards the slave, and like the man driven to 
the wall, we shall be forced to destroy our assailants to save 
our own liberty. 

The eastern leaders in this debate made even less 
effort than Leigh and Upshur had, in 1829-30, to 
follow Jeffersonian principles; they now stood out 

"Willey, Speech, 5. 



270 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

unequivocally for the rights of the minority in gov- 
ernment ; to them ''the majority of the community" of 
the Bill of Rights had come to mean a political major- 
ity composed of a majority of the interests of both 
property and persons ; in brief, the philosophy of Cal- 
houn had displaced that of Jefferson. Although the 
eastern delegates frequently complained that their 
patience was being worn beyond endurance by the 
efforts of their western brethren to get possession of 
the purse strings of the commonwealth, their argu- 
ments are characterized by a spirit of conciliation and 
a feeling of fear for the future integrity of the com- 
monwealth. 

The constitution passed the convention w^ithout 
division ;^^ but, when it was submitted to the people 
for ratification, voices were raised against it in the east. 
Its objectionable feature was the compromise plan of 
representation, which involved a practical surrender 
of the mixed basis. When the plan had been agreed 
upon, a little more than two months before the conven- 
tion adjourned, mass-meetings were held in the eastern 
counties to condemn it and to move for dismember- 
ment in case the convention refused to reconsider its 
action. ^^ But the eastern delegates who had voted for 
the compromise remained firm, notwithstanding the 
fact that they were branded as "base Judeans" and 
"vile traitors. "^^ There is no doubt that the east felt 
as intensely over the compromise of 1851 as the west 

°''' Journal, Constitutional Convention of 1850-51, 419. 
'^Richmond Whig, May 30, 1851; ibid., June 5 and 17, 1851. 
'^'' Ibid., June 17 and 27, 1851. 



REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51 271 

had over that of 1830. But the constitutional pro- 
visions regulating the taxation of s-ave property, 
agreed upon in the last days of the convention, con- 
ciliated the east somewhat, and the new constitution 
was ratified by an overwhelming majority, 75,784 votes 
being cast for ratification to 11,063 ^^^ rejection.^^ 
The quiet which followed the convention was occa- 
sionally interrupted by incidents w^hich proved that 
neither the east nor the west trusted each other. The 
eastern prints frequently contained letters suggesting 
the dismemberment of the state as the only thing which 
would prevent the east from becoming the political 
appendage of the west.^^ Shortly after Governor 
Johnson's second inauguration an incident occurred 
which showed the mutual distrust of the sections upon 
the subject of negro slavery and the negro. In compli- 
ance with the request of numerous petitions Governor 
Johnson commuted to deportation the sentence of a 
negro, Jordon Hatcher, condemned to be hanged. This 
act called forth a large crowd which gathered in the 
governor's yard at Richmond, to vilify him and to 
denounce his official action. The incident aroused the 
west, and a resolution was immediately introduced in 
the Assembly to remove the state capital from Rich- 
mond.^^ The western prints, now exulting in their 

^'*The vote for rejection came principally from the east, but 
even there only five counties gave majorities for it. All those 
to whom suffrage had been extended voted for ratification regard- 
less of sectional feelings. 

**For example see Riclmiond Whig, March 12, 1852. 

^''Journal, House of Del., 1852, 448, 576. The vote in the 
House for removal was : noes 35, ayes 88. 



272 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177^1861 

newly won victory, threatened to turn "the sleeping 
lions of the northwest" upon the eastern aristocrats, 
to which threat the Richmond Whig replied that 
there were not a few in the east "who would like to 
see [Governor] Johnson pack for the northwest."^^ 

°^ Richmond Whig, May 11, 1852. 



CHAPTER IX 

SECTIONALISM IN EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH, 

1830-61 

The sectional contest in educational policy was a 
gradual growth. It w^as the vote of the west which 
caused the state to establish the free-school system of 
1796, called the "Aldermanic System,"^ and fourteen 
years later to create a permanent literary fund. In 
181 6 the west had insisted that the total income from 
the "Literary Fund" should be used to establish free 
schools, and, in 1819, it had consented to an annual 
appropriation of $15,000 to the proposed university 
only on condition that a system of free schools should 
be established later.^ 

In the reform movement of the later '20's the sub- 
ject of education was but a secondary issue. In the 
Assembly of 1828-29, ^^^ again in the constitutional 
convention of 1829-30 Alexander Campbell, founder 
of the Christian church and of Bethany College, made 
fruitless efforts to secure a more efficient free-school 
system.^ By a sectional vote, strikingly sim^ilar to the 

^This was the first material result of the movement initiated 
by Jefferson in 1779 for free schools. Under this plan each 
county was to be divided into districts and education was to be 
free to all whites (Shepherd, Statutes at Large, II, 3). 

^At this time $45,000 was appropriated annually for the edu- 
cation of the poor white children. 

^Acts of 1828-29, 13; Kanawha Republican, May 28, 1842. 
See also an article entitled "The Public School System," by Dr. 
W. H. Ruffner, in the Richmond Enquirer, May 12, 1876. 

273 



274 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

popular vote of 1828, on the bill to provide for the call 
of a constitutional convention, the House of Delegates 
of 1830-31 rejected a bill to increase the annual 
appropriation to the primary schools for the poor.^ 

When foreign immigration began to come in 
large numbers and when the population began to con- 
tain a large sprinkling of New Englanders, the free 
common schools became a subject of great concern in 
the west. The primary schools for the poor, main- 
tained by the $45,000 annual appropriation from the 
Literary Fund, furnished the basis for a more com- 
prehensive free-school system. The comparative 
absence of social distinctions and the dearth of good 
private schools made it convenient as well as necessary 
for all classes, at all desirous of attending any school, 
to attend the schools for the poor whites and to co- 
operate in the movement to change them into free 
common schools.^ Accordingly the west continued to 
oppose the demands of the State University and the 
numerous colleges and academies for a greater partici- 
pation in the benefits of the Literary Fund and insisted 
that the increased revenue should go to the free schools 
for the education of the poor. It even defeated an 
attempt to establish a chair of agriculture and an ex- 
periment station at the University and tried to cut in 
half the University appropriation for running expenses. 
It also bitterly opposed the establishment of state 
military schools and insisted that the revenue from the 

* Journal, House of Del., 1830-31, 283. 

^Richmond Enquirer, May 12, 1876; Report of U. S. Com. of 
Education (1899-1900), I, 433, 434. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 275 

sale of forfeited lands, the chief source of income for 
the Literary Fund, should be returned to the counties 
in which the lands lay, to be used for the use of the 
local schools.^ 

In the '40's when the ill feeling between the east 
and west was very intense, the young men of the west 
refused to attend the University and the state military 
schools, even when they were given appointments and 
the state offered to bear a part of their expenses. Out 
of a total enrolment of 112 residents of Virginia 
attending the University in 1841-42 only 12 came 
from counties west of the Blue Ridge J By 1845 the 
total enrolment from Virginia in the University had 
risen to 134, but the number from west of the Blue 
Ridge had increased by only 2. In 1839 there were 
twice as many residents of western Virginia attending 
colleges in Ohio and Pennsylvania as were enrolled in 
the institutions of eastern Virginia. The number 
attending Marietta College (Ohio) alone was 15.^ 

In 1838 Governor Campbell, a resident of south- 
western Virginia, aroused many citizens of the state 
to an interest in behalf of the common schools. By 
statistics he showed that illiteracy was increasing.^ A 
remarkable series of educational conventions followed. 

^Kanawha Republican, December 25, 1841 ; Journal, House of 
Del., 1839-40, 26, 206; ibid., 1845-46, 164. Most of the for- 
feited lands lay in the western counties. 

''Ibid., 1842-43, Docs. Nos. i and 6. The Kanawha Repub- 
lican put the number at nine, January 25, 1842 ; House Journal, 
1847-48, Doc. No. 46. 

^Catalogue of Marietta College, 1838-39. 

"" Journal, House of Del, 1837-38, 9; i^id., 1838-39, Doc. 
No. I. 



276 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

The first and most important of these assemblies 
was held in Clarksburg, now the county seat of Harri- 
son County, West Virginia. It met September 8-9, 
1 84 1, and was attended by one hundred and thirty 
delegates from the northwest and the Valley. Among 
those attending the convention were educational work- 
ers from Ohio and Pennsylvania. Rousing addresses 
were made; elaborate plans for a free-school system 
were submitted ; and enthusiastic communications were 
read from many of the most prominent citizens of the 
west.^^ 

A communication from Judge E. S. Duncan was 
typical. He denounced that policy which denied the 
west federal aid for internal improvements and educa- 
tion, when the east had no intention of granting state 
aid. 

A splendid university has been endowed [said he] acces- 
sible only to the sons of the wealthy planters of the eastern 
part of the state and to the southern states. I have heard of 
only two students attending it from the northwest. The re- 
sources of the Literary Fund are flittered away in the endow- 
ment of an institution whose tendencies are essentially aristo- 
cratic and beneficial only to the very rich, and for the sup- 
port of the primary schools intended for the very poor 

The men of small farms are left to their own means for the 
education of their children. They cannot send them to the 
University, and they are prohibited, if they would, from join- 
ing in the scramble for the annual donation to the poor 
[which is scattered in the] ostentatious manner of a nabob, 
who throws small change among the paupers and cries, "catch 
who can."" 

^^ Report of the U. S. Com. of Ed. (1899-1900), I, 435; 
Journal, House of Del., 1841-42, Doc No. 7. 

"^ Ibid., Doc. No. 7; Kanawha Republican, May ,21, 1842. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 277 

The convention prepared an elaborate memorial to 
the Assembly and passed resolutions favoring the estab- 
lishment of state free schools. The following resolu- 
tion shows the importance and nature of some of the 
subjects considered : 

Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, That the money 
deposited with the state by the depositary act of Congress, to- 
gether with the proceeds of the public lands to which Virginia 
may be entitled, by the late act of Congress, depositing the pro- 
ceeds of the same among the states and territories, ought to be 
invested in some permanent interest bearing fund and pledged 
by the Legislature to the support of internal improvements and 
common schools.^ 

The sentiment of the resolutions adopted alarmed 
Ritchie, of the Richmond Enquirer, to such an extent 
that he expressed to Calhoun fear that the friends of 
education would weaken the Democratic party in Vir- 
ginia.^ ^ 

The Clarksburg Convention was followed by nu- 
merous others of a similar nature. The most important 
were the conventions which met in Lexington and 
Richmond in October, 1842. Dr. Henry Ruffner, 
president of Washington College (now Washington 
and Lee University), was the moving spirit in the Lex- 
ington meeting, and submitted there ''the most valuable 
document on general education issued in Virginia since 
the early days of Thomas Jefferson, viz., an elaborate 

^^ Journal, House of Del., 1841-42, Doc. No, 7. 

■^^ "Calhoun Correspondence," in Am. Hist. Asso. Rept. (1899), 
II, 839. The Democrats were opposed to receiving Virginia's share 
of the deposits and defeated resolutions for that purpose in the 
Assembly. 



278 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

plan for the organization of an entire educational 
system of public instruction."^"^ The Richmond 
Convention was an effort to arouse interest in the 
movement in the east and was controlled largely by 
westerners. 

The Assembly responded to the educational move- 
ment by a bill, which, however, the conservatives 
caused to disappear from sight after its second reading. 
Other conventions followed, and the Assembly of 
1845-46 was forced to enact a law giving to each 
county the authority, provided the voters desired it, 
to establish public free schools. ^^ This act, however, 
was little improvement upon that of 1796. No regu- 
lar state aid was given ; free schools were optional ; 
and they always encountered strong opposition even 
in the west, where there were enough of those who 
adhered to the private school and academy to cause 
endless trouble.^ ^ 

Education was a subject of minor consideration in 
the constitutional convention of 1850-51. The west- 
ern delegates desired a system of common free schools 
maintained by the state, and a large number of them 
voted for a resolution to withdraw the annual appro- 
priation from the University.^ ^ The committee on 
education, controlled by western delegates, desired to 

^^ Report U. S, Com. of Ed. (1899-1900), I, 437. The plan 
is given in full in the same report, p. 381. 

"Acts of 1845-46. 

^'^ Star of the Kanawha Valley, February 8, 1850. 

^''Journal, Constitutional Convention of 1850-51, 384, 385. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 279 

make it obligatory upon the legislature to provide by 
law for popular education, but its report to that effect 
was voted down by the eastern delegates.^ ^ 

When the Kansas trouble and the Dred Scott deci- 
sion caused negro slavery again to become an issue 
between the North and the South, and when the latter 
section began to move for its intellectual, industrial, 
and commercial independence, Virginia led in the 
movement for an educational independence. Her lead- 
ers sought to make the University the intellectual 
center of the South, whence should emanate the ortho- 
dox teachings on the nature of the federal government. 
The public press was full of editorials and articles to 
show that the South had for more than a century been 
contributing largely of its means to support northern 
educational institutions; that her textbooks were 
WTitten by northerners, who were unfriendly to her 
social and political institutions; and that her teachers 
were '' Yankees. "^^ 

The southern commercial conventions repeatedly 
called attention to these facts,^^ and in 1856 and 1857 
educational conventions, composed largely of college 
men, met in Richmond to remedy the situation. They 
passed resolutions favorable to making the University 
the intellectual center and to fostering the academies 
and colleges as preparatory institutions thereto. The 

^ Ibid., 253. See also Appendix. 

^Kanawha Valley Star, June 25, 1856; Cincinnati Enquirer, 
June 5, 1856. 

^'''DeBow, Reviezv, XV, 268, 27^] XVI, 638. 



28o SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA. 1776-1861 

system of primary education as it then existed was 
condemned.^^ 

Under the influence of this movement the Uni- 
versity of Virginia became the most prominent and 
important educational center in the South, and indeed, 
in the whole country. Its attendance rose from less 
than two hundred in 1848 to almost seven hundred in 
1858.-^ The following editorials from a western print 
of strong pro-southern sentiments show the feeling 
w^hich prevailed even in some parts of western Vir- 
ginia : 

In the last ten or twelve years Virginia has made rapid 
strides in the cause of education. In the session of 1846-47 
the University had only one hundred and sixty-three students ; 
now upwards of six hundred annually attend lectures at that 
s-eat of learning Albemarle County is becoming the cen- 
ter of educational attraction, not only for Virginia but for the 
whole South. The University and preparatory schools in Albe- 
marle now number annually one thousand students who are 
all being insitructed in like manner, who are all being impressed 
with similar thoughts, with like principles, who are united by 
a common devotion to Southern rights, to Southern institutions, 
to Southern manners and Southern chivalry. In a word, the 

'^ House Documents of Virginia Legislature of 1857-58, Doc. 
No. 1. 

-Hn 1859 there were enrolled in the University of Virginia 
624 students, only 8 of whom came from the free states. The en- 
rolment by states was as follows: Virginia, 370; Alabama, 52; 
South Carolina, 35 ; Mississippi, 25 ; Louisiana, 25 ; North Caro- 
lina, 21; Georgia, 20; Maryland, 15; Kentucky, 14; Tennessee, 
11; Texas, 9; District of Columbia, 7; Missouri, 7; Florida, 2; 
Pennsylvania, 3 ; New York, 2 ; Delaware, i ; Ohio, i ; Arkansas, i ; 
Iowa, I ; Peru 2 {House Documents [1858-59], Part II, Doc. 
No. 12). 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 281 

University is shaping and molding the minds of the educated 
youth of Virginia and the entire South; it is uniting the young 
men of the South together and making them more and more 
attached to her peculiar institutions.^ 

On the subject of teachers and teaching the same 
print said : 

Virginia has, however, in the last ten years undergone a 
great change in respect to her school teachers and to school 

teaching A few years ago when Virginia was filled with 

indifferent Yankee school teachers, you could scarcely find a 
school master who occupied an influential position in society. 
Now, through means of the University, the Military Institute, 
and other Virginia colleges the profession of teaching has be- 
come one of the most important, lucrative, and respectable of 
pursuits. The first young men in the state in point of talent, 
education and respectability have turned their attention to the 
subject of teaching. 

And this happy change has been going on so rapidly that, 
at the present time in East Virginia, it is almost impossible 
for one to get employment as a school teacher unless he was 
native born, raised and educated in Virginia. And this truly 
Virginian and Southern feeling prevails nearly to the same 
extent in the Valley of Virginia, and we hope the day is not 
far distant when it will prevail over every portion of the entire 
Commonwealth, and that no person will be employed to teach 
and instruct Virginia youths unless he be of the "Manor born." 
.... And here we will add that the influence exerted in the 
trans-Alleghany by Yankee teachers is entirely too great, and 
that it behooves every true Virginian to correct this evil. No 
education is better than bad education; no morals are better 
than bad morals.^ 

In spite of these occasional protests by ardent pro- 
southern men the Yankee school teachers held their 

'^Kanawha Valley Star, July 12, 1859. 
^*' Ibid., December 2, 1856. 



282 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

own in the trans-Alleghany, which never co-operated 
in the movement to make the University the intel- 
lectual center of Virginia and of the South. E. W. 
Newton, editor of the most important newspaper pub- 
lished in the trans-Alleghany before the Civil War, the 
Kanazvha Republican, and himself a former Vermont 
school teacher, pleaded earnestly and continuously 
the cause of the common free school and denounced 
the system whereby illiteracy was allowed to increase 
among the masses. It is significant that, when the 
total enrolment of the University had risen to 645 
in 1857, ^^^ that from Virginia alone to t^^t,, there 
were only 13 students enrolled from those counties 
now forming West Virginia. ^^ In 1859 the total en- 
rolment of Virginians at the University had risen to 
370 only 17 of whom came from what is now West 
Virginia.^^ When dismemberment came, one of the 
charges brought by the westerners against the east was 
that they had been denied common free schools, and 
that their taxes had been taken to maintain a Univer- 
sity for aristocrats.^^ 

Far more important factors than even the differ- 
ences between the sections over education, in shaping 
the antagonistic pro-southern and pro-Union senti- 
ment in Virginia, were the struggles between the 
churches and the subsequent contest between the vari- 
ous church organizations over the subject of negro 
slavery. Because of the political movements which 

^Documents of the Assembly of 1857-58, Doc. No. 12, p. 112. 
^Documents of the Assembly of 1859-60, Part II, Doc. No. 12. 
" Wheeling Intelligencer, May 3, i860. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 283 

combined with them the importance of these factors 
have been minimized, but a careful study of any sec- 
tion of the Border, during the year-s immediately pre- 
ceding the Civil War, must convince one that they were 
potent. 

The contest within the Methodist church and 
between the separate church organizations which arose 
therefrom was the most important. The struggle in 
the other churches, although important, will not here 
be followed. 

The northern and western portions of Virginia lay 
divided among the Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, 
and Ohio annual conferences of the Methodist church. 
Each of these conferences comprised both slave and 
free territory, and each forbade its ministers to own 
negro slaves. The laws of the slave states prohibiting 
manumissions made it difficult in some cases for 
ministers residing therein to avoid becoming slave- 
owners, because they might come into possession of 
negroes either by marriage or inheritance and the 
laws of both Maryland and Virginia prohibited their 
manumission. When a minister thus became a slave- 
owner, his services were thereby rendered undesirable 
to congregations in the free states, and not infre- 
quently to congregations in Virginia west of the Blue 
Ridge. Cases involving the possession of negro slaves 
by the traveling ministers had come up in the local 
conferences, and had arrayed the slave-holding and 
the non-slaveholding portions of their membership 
against each other. 

In 1840 members of the Baltimore Annual Con- 



284 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ference residing in Virginia petitioned the General 
Conference for permission to join the Virginia Annual 
Conference.-^ They set forth that, while they were 
subject to the civil law of Virginia which forbade 
emancipation, they were ecclesiastically under the Balti- 
more Conference, which refused slave-owners election 
to elders' orders or to the itinerary ministry, and asked 
for an interpretation of the church law on the subject. 
The General Conference directed ''that the ownership 
of slave property in states or territories where the laws 
did not admit of emancipation or permit the liberated 
slave to enjoy freedom constituted no legal barrier to 
the election or ordination of ministers to the various 
grades of office known to the Methodist Episcopal 
church," thus practically nullifying the laws of the 
local annual conferences. It also refused the request 
of the petitioners for annexation to the Virginia Con- 
ference.-^ 

The Baltimore Conference, however, refused to 
abide by this decision, and suspended one of its travel- 
ing ministers, Mr. Harding, who had become a slave- 
owner by marriage. Through Dr. W. A. Smith of the 
Virginia Conference, an ardent pro-southern man, 
Harding appealed to the General Conference of 1844 
for reinstatement. The Baltimore Conference, through 
one of its ablest ministers, John A. Collins, fought the 
appeal. Both sides claimed to represent the true posi- 

'^ Journal of the General Conference of 1840, 168. The Gen- 
eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal church met every four 
years. 

'^Ibid., 167. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 285 

tion of the Methodist Episcopal church on the subject 
of negro slavery, and the debate waged between Smith 
and Collins depicted clearly the differences between the 
northern and southern sympathizers in the Border.^*^ 

Dr. Smith argued that the highest church law, that 
of the General Conference, permitted Harding to own 
negro slaves; that the action of the Baltimore Confer- 
ence in suspending him was "ultra-abolitionist;" that 
there was danger of the church becoming embroiled in 
the political discussions of the day; that abolitionists 
had killed colonization and gradual emancipation; and 
finally that "slavery is a great evil but beyond our 
control, yet not necessarily a sin. We must then 
quietly submit to a necessity, which we cannot control 
or remedy, endeavoring to carry the gospel of salvation 
to both master and slave. "^^ 

Collins, who undoubtedly spoke the sentiment of 
the northern portion of the Border, said : "We are just 
where we always were, standing as a breakwater to 
pro-slavery in the South and the waves of abolition in 
the North." He admitted that abolition had killed 
colonization and gradual emancipation, but denied the 
justice of the contention of the South regarding the 
relation of church officials and ministers to negro 
slavery. The following statement from his argument 
voiced a sentiment not unpopular in Maryland and 
western Virginia : "We will not combine with the 
enemies of the African either in the North or in 

■^Debates of the General Conference, 1844. 
^"•Ibid.. 28. 



286 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the South, .... aboHtion shall not make us pro- 
slavery."^^ 

The case was decided against Harding,^^ and the 
General Conference passed to a consideration of the 
charges preferred against Bishop James O. Andrew, 
of Georgia, who, it was alleged by some of the New 
England conferences, had become a slave-owner. This 
involved a contest on a larger scale, and resulted in the 
division of the church into two churches, the Methodist 
Episcopal and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
But before adjournment the conference accepted a 
'Tlan of Separation" which the northern church later 
officially and the southern church practically repudi- 
ated. 

"The Plan," as it is commonly called, provided that 
"should the annual conferences in the slave-holding 
states find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesias- 
tical connection," the following rule "shall be ob- 
served" with regard to the northern boundary : 

All the societies, stations, and conferences adhering to the 
church in the South, by a vote of the majority of the mem- 
bers of said societies, stations and conferences, shall remain 
under the unmolested care of the Southern Church, and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organ- 
ize churches or societies within the limits of the church South. 

This rule was to be reciprocal, and provision was 
also made that it should apply only to societies, stations, 
and conferences bordering on the line of division, and 
not to "interior charges," which in all cases wxre left 

■''^Debates of the General Conference, 1844, 33-39- 
'^Journal of the General Conference of 1844, 34. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 287 

to the jurisdiction of that church in whose territory 
they should be situated. ^^ 

The original line of separation between the two 
churches, in Virginia, lay through the Chesapeake Bay 
from the Atlantic to the mouth of the Rappahannock 
River; thence following that stream to its source, and 
continuing to the Blue Ridge Mountains, it ran along 
their crest to a point southwest of Lynchburg; thence 
it turned almost due west to the source of the Big 
Sandy River, which it followed to the Ohio.^^ 

It was only natural for each church to try to hold 
all the territory and membership which it could secure 
along this line. But the southern church, true to the 
spirit of aggressiveness which then characterized its 
membership, soon began a campaign for members and 
territory in the whole slave-holding Border. The 
northern church was active on the defensive. It 
assured the Methodists in the Border that the "Disci- 
pline will remain as it is on the subject of negro slav- 
gj.y."36 ^i^Q southern church was accused of secession; 
and interior stations and circuits, north of the line of 
separation, and where only a minority had adhered to 
the northern church, were promised ministers to con- 
duct their services and legal aid to enable them to 
retain the church property.^^ 

^ibid., 135. 

""Ibid., 93. 

^Richmond Christian Advocate, August 21, 1845. The Dis- 
cipline permitted members of the Methodist Episcopal church to 
own negro slaves. 

'■^'^ Ibid., August 25, 1845. 



288 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

Both churches sent agents into the Border to dis- 
tribute Hterature and to organize their respective ad- 
herents. In both the Valley and the trans-Alleghany 
it was necessary for the southern church to take aggres- 
sive action to place its contentions before the people 
before they should be called upon to vote upon the 
cjuestion of adherence. Prior to 1844 the church mem- 
bership in these sections had received its Hterature 
from Pittsburg, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and it 
was consequently out of sympathetic touch with the 
South and southern sentiment. Of the situation one of 
the southern agents said : *'I find that as soon as I cross 
the Blue Ridge .... the southern papers do not cir- 
culate there, or only to a very limited extent."^^ 

The voting to choose between adherence to the 
northern or southern branches of the Methodist 
church occurred almost simultaneously in the belt of 
territory north of the line of separation. In many 
instances the voting was not restricted to the stations 
and circuits along the line of separation, as provided 
by the Plan, but votes were taken in "interior" stations 
and circuits. As a rule the minorities in such places 
refused to join their brethren in adhering to the 
southern church, and the northern conferences, true to 
the unofficial promises made by their members, 
continued to send regular ministers to them. This 
condition precipitated a bitter contest for church mem- 
bership and church property. 

The effect of these clashes of authority and con- 
flicting views was demoralizing in the extreme. In 

'^Richmond Christian Advocate, August 21, 1845. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 289 

some instances two pastors tried to hold services in the 
same church at the same time ; ministers of the north- 
ern church were forced to leave the state for fear of 
being summarily dealt with; church property was 
mutilated and destroyed; Bibles were torn and soiled; 
and church entrances were, in some instances, guarded 
with shot guns. Frequently those defeated in the vot- 
ing to adhere to the northern or southern church re- 
fused to abide by the decision of the majority, claiming 
that it had not been fairly and accurately ascertained. 
A house-to-house canvass usually followed in which 
most conflicting results were obtained. In some of 
these contests members of the same family and near 
relatives were arrayed against each other.^^ 

Resort was finally had to the courts. The grand 
jury of Accomac County presented the Christian Ad- 
vocate and Journal of Baltimore as an "incendiary 
sheet tending to excite slaves to insurrection," and took 
steps to prohibit its circulation. The grand jury of 
Parkersburg, Wood County, presented the Western 
Christian Advocate of Cincinnati on a similar charge 
and took similar precautions.'*^ Important suits in- 
volving the possession of church property arose in 
Parkersburg, Wood County, Charleston and Maiden, 
Kanawha County, Harrisonburg, Rockingham County, 
and Salem and Rectortown, Fauquier County. In the 

^^ Pittsburg Christian Advocate. February 11, 1846; ibid., 
March 11, 1846; manuscripts in the Parkersburg church case, T. 
A. Cook V. L. P. Neal ; pamphlet, the Harrisonburg church cases, 
Sites V. Harrison, and Flecker v. Harrison. 

*^ Matlack, Anti-Slavery Struggle and Triumph of the M. E. 
Church, 185. 



290 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

local courts the Methodist Episcopal church won al- 
most invariably. But when the case went to the Su- 
preme Court, which was composed largely of judges 
who resided east of the Blue Ridge, the decisions of 
the local courts were reversed. ^^ The local courts 
based their decision upon ''a fair interpretation of the 
Plan of Separation" and insisted that the original line 
between the churches must be accepted and that only 
such stations and circuits as bordered on that line had 
a right to choose whether or not they should adhere to 
the northern or southern church. The Supreme Court 
passed over the fact that the property in dispute be- 
longed to "interior" societies and sustained the claims 
of the southern church on the ground that the realty 
and property in dispute had been deeded to local socie- 
ties and not to the Methodist Episcopal church as a 
sect.^^ 

The General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal church of 1848 received numerous petitions from 
its adherents in western Virginia asking that they be 
not forced to affiliate with another church ; that minis- 
ters be sent to them; and that an annual conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal church be erected on slave 
territory within Virginia. Accordingly the General 
Conference organized the Western Virginia Annual 
Conference and entered upon a renewed effort to gain 
territory and membership within Virginia; a large 
force of ministers and agents was sent into the dis- 
puted territory to organize conferences and circuits; 
resolutions of sympathy were adopted for those who 

" 13 Gratt., 310. *^ 13 Graft., 309. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 291 

had been deprived of the possession of church prop- 
erty; and the Plan of Separation was repudiated.^ ^ 

This event was soon followed by the organization 
of the Western Virginia Annual Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South.** Both churches 
now engaged in mutual recriminations, but interest in 
church propagandism soon ceased. It was not revived 
until the North and the South were again arrayed on 
the subject of the extension of negro slavery into Kan- 
sas. During the years 1854 and 1855 propagandism 
was at red heat in western Virginia. The southern 
church adopted the policy : "Carry everything up to 
the Mason and Dixon line." New corps of ministers 
and agents were sent into the Border to carry on this 
work. They there met agents of the northern church, 
and some of the joint discussions which followed were 
marked by all that vituperation and bitterness which 
usually characterize religious controversies. In many 
instances the inhabitants deserted their fields of labor 
to attend the ''politico-religio" gatherings ; a large por- 
tion of the public prints was given up to a discussion 
of the differences between the churches; and in some 
instances ministers were again forced to leave the 
country. ^^ 

It was at this period that the struggle between the 
churches did much to crystallize public opinion and to 
determine subsequent affiliations with either the North 
or the South. The adherents of the northern church 

^Journal of the General Conference of 1848, 17, 73, 116, 164. 

"This conference was organized in 1850. 

*^ Pamphlet by Wesley Smith, Defense of the M. E. Church, i. 



292 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

now renewed their oft-repeated accusation of secession 
on the part of the southern church and took the com- 
paratively new ground of champions of the Union. In 
this role they foreshadowed their policy in the Civil 
War. In reply to a speech made in Harrison County 
(now West Virginia) by Rev. Kelley of Kentucky, 
Rev. Wesley Smith used the following language : 

Are you prepared for a dissolution of the American Union? 
If you are not, then speak out in thunder tones and tell these 
disunionists that they shall not divide the church of the land 
by the line which separates the slave states from the free ! 
Tell them that the Methodist Episcopal church shall exist on 
slave territory to the end of time, and that as a Heaven ap- 
pointed instrumentality, .... we shall aid in preserving the 
integrity of the Union. 

That the existence of the American Methodist church, in 
the slave states as well as in the free, is the surest guarantee 
for the preservation of this confederacy. We have a con- 
stantly increasing fleet of the line of battle ships commencing 
with the Baltimore Annual Conference on the seaboard and 
embracing Western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas," 
and to these we expect to add an additional ship on slave ter- 
ritory every four years.*^ 

It was only natural for the intense sectional rivalry 
between the churches to manifest itself in things purely 
political. The Virginia constitution of 1851 digressed 
from the general and fundamental to give the Assem- 
bly power to secure to societies and congregations the 
possession of church property. In the first guber- 
natorial contest decided by a vote of the people, that of 

■•^ These annual conferences, except that in West Virginia, were 
organized in 1852. 

" Pamphlet by Wesley Smith, Defense of the M. E. Church. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 293 

1 85 1, George W. Summers, the Whig candidate, was a 
resident of the trans- Alleghany, as was his opponent, 
Joseph Johnson. Summers w^as accused by the Demo- 
cratic prints of being friendly to the Methodist Episco- 
pal church and in this way of being affiliated with 
the abolitionists. Rumor went the rounds that he had 
permitted members of that sect to erect a church on 
his farm in Kanawha County where abolitionism was 
preached.^^ In the gubernatorial campaign of 1855, 
Mr. Wise, wdio relied for his election upon the Demo- 
cratic vote of the northwest, the Methodist Episcopal 
stronghold, denied having ever accused the Methodist 
preachers of introducing Know-Nothingism into Vir- 
ginia.^^ On the other hand, the Know-Nothing prints 
attacked the Methodists on the charge of popery. 
Their church government by bishops was compared to 
that of the pope and cardinals. This attack, together 
with the fact that many members of the Methodist 
Episcopal church in the northwest were foreigners, 
Irish and German, tended to keep some of them in the 
Democratic party.^^ 

In the General Conference of 1856 the members of 
the Methodist Episcopal church in the Border made a 
determined stand against the abolitionists. At this 
time the New England conferences made an effort so 
to amend the Discipline of the church as to make slave- 

*^ Richmond Whig, December 2, 1851. 
*^ Kanawha Valley Star, March 21, 1856. 

"^ Ibid., March 28, 1855; Hambleton, Life of Henry A. Wise, 
107. 



294 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

holding a disqualification for membership.^^ Under 
the leadership of John A. Collins, of the Baltimore 
Conference, the delegates from the Border asked that 
the plighted faith of 1844 be kept. The arguments for 
and against this change show that the Border and the 
North had drifted almost as far apart in 1856 as had 
the extreme North and South in 1844. The northern 
conferences now denounced slave-holding and any rec- 
ognition of it as a sin and accordingly refused to com- 
promise. On the other hand, Gordon Battelle, of the 
West Virginia Conference, claimed that negro slavery 
was a national and civic institution with which the 
church had nothing to do,'"^^ and Collins assured the 
northerners that there was but one reason why the 
Baltimore Conference had not gone with the South in 
1844, viz., 'Tt did not concur with the sentiment of the 

South which proclaimed slavery a Divine institu- 
tion."53 

By the co-operation of the conferences in the mid- 
dle and western states the Border conferences were 
victorious in 1856, and the Discipline remained un- 
changed.^"* But the abolitionists scored victory on 
another line, which was ultimately of much importance 
in shaping the anti-slavery sentiment even in the 
Border. By their influence the editorial staff of the 
various church papers and periodicals was almost com- 

^^ Journal of the General Conference of 1836. 
^ Matlack, Anti-Slavery Struggle and Triumph of the M. E. 
Church, 222. 

'^^Ibid., 252. 

^Journal of the General Conference of 1836. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 295 

pletely changed. ^^ The conservative editors, who since 
1844 had acted on a pohcy of conciHation and for the 
extension of the church in the Border, were displaced 
by the election of young abolitionist editors, and a 
resolution removing the church censorship on anti- 
slavery publications was adopted. 

Under these changed conditions the church press, 
even in portions of the Border, soon became decidedly 
anti-slavery. Much of the Sunday-school literature 
used there pictured 'Vum-selling, cheating, and slave- 
owning" as temptations which the young must shun.^® 
The church periodicals published letters from corre- 
spondents in which "the stench, the suffocation, and 
the death of slave society" were described.^''^ 

The change in the attitude of the northern church 
press and its frequent attacks upon southern society 
and institutions called forth scathing answers from 
both the political and church organs of pro-southern 
sentiment and caused the stump and the pulpit alike to 
engage in excited utterances of theological dogma and 
political harangue. In many cases it would have been 
difficult to tell whether or not a given newspaper or 
periodical was a church or party organ. Whole issues 
of the trans-Alleghany and VaPey newspapers were 
practically given up to articles and editorials written 

^ Six of the twelve editors elected in 1856 had voted for the 
proposition to make slave-holding a disqualification for member- 
ship in the church (Matlack, Anti-Slavery Struggle, 296). 

^^ Sunday School Advocate, November 14, 1857; Kanawha Val- 
ley Star, January 12, 1858. 

^''Pittsburg Christian Advocate, August 21, 1857; Kanazcha 
Valley Star, September i, 1857. 



296 SECTIOi\ALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

to prove that the Methodist Episcopal church ''is an 
aboHtionist, anti-slavery, anti-South, and anti-Virginia 
institution," and that ''it is more of a political than a 
religious organization.''^'^ Many mass-meetings were 
held to protest against the dissemination of sentiments 
"derogatory and dangerous to our institutions." The 
resolutions passed by a meeting at Boothsville, Marion 
County, are here given as typical of those passed by 
other gatherings and of the sentiment which prevailed 
among the pro-southern sympathizers in western Vir- 
ginia. 

1. Resolved, That, as the firm friends of the National Con- 
stitution, we pledge ourselves to oppose with manly firmness 
every attempt of northern abolitionists and of their coadjutors 
who are vainly seeking to conceal their dark purposes by fraud 
and disguise, to beguile our people into an alliance with Black 
Republicanism. 

2. That the present position of the northern division of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church on the slavery question, the action 
of its general and annual conferences, the course taken by its 
editors and clergy, prove it to be as thoroughly abolitionist as 
any party organization in the country. 

3. That we ask as a special favor of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church and any other church that may consider this country 
a part of their moral vineyard for the future to send among 
us only such ministers as have wisdom and grace enough to 
enable them to preach the gospel without meddling with our 
civil institutions.'^" 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, took ad- 
vantage of the anti-abolition sentiment in western Vir- 

'^ Kanawha Valley Star, October 20, 1857; ibid., December 8, 
1857. 

^^ Ibid,, September 15, 1857. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 297 

ginia to push its demand for "everything up to the 
Mason and Dixon Hne." Joint discussions, sometimes 
nine or ten hours in duration, were held in the Valley 
and elsewhere between ministers of the northern and 
southern church. Those friendly to the southern 
organization now frequently called attention to the oft- 
repeated prophecy, made in 1844 and 1845, that the 
northern church would ultimately show its true char- 
acter as an abolitionist institution.^^ At the same time 
an effort was made to drive the northern church liter- 
ature out of western Virginia, a Book and Tract 
Society being incorporated for that purpose. ^^ 

In the General Conference of i860 the northern 
ministers overcame the opposition of those from the 
Border, who continued to ''battle for the old-fashioned 
anti-slavery Methodism," and amended the Discipline 
on the subject of slavery.^- This action disrupted the 
Baltimore Conference, the larger number of whose 
ministers met immediately at Staunton, Virginia, and 
passed resolutions declaring the bond which united 
them to the northern church sundered and established 
themselves as a separate and independent church. ^^ 
The minority refused to abide by the action at 
Staunton, and continued to adhere to the northern 
church, claiming all the time to be the legal Baltimore 
Conference. Thus was occasioned another series of 

^Ubtd., March 9, 1859. 

^Ibid., November 16, 1858. 

'^'^ Journal of the General Conference of i860, 202, 404. 

^ 32 Graft., 428. This organization maintained a separate and 
independent existence down to 1866 when it affiliated with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 



298 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

suits for possession of church property. These suits 
pended during the Civil War and down into the recon- 
struction period.^^ 

It is significant that the West Virginia Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal church did not follow the 
action of the Baltimore Conference in repudiating the 
changes in the church Discipline on the subject of 
negro slavery and in establishing a separate and inde- 
pendent church. Its loyalty to the northern church 
finds a possible explanation in the fact that the south- 
ern church had in the period from 1854 to i860, when 
anti-abolition was its shibboleth, extended its Western 
Virginia Annual Conference over practically the whole 
trans-Alleghany area. Although the membership of the 
northern church in that section greatly outnumbered 
that of the southern, congregations, adhering to the 
southern church, existed, in 1858, in a large part of 
the trans-Alleghany. Indeed, that church had made a 
much better showing there than in the Valley or the 
Northern Neck. Consequently those few persons in 
the West Virginia Conference, who desired to leave the 
northern church because of its action in i860 on the 
subject of negro slavery, found an organized church 
to their liking awaiting them.^^ 

The oft-repeated statement, made even to this day 
by many of the older residents of northern West Vir- 

'^32 Gratt., d,22 fif. ; 3 West Virginia, 102, 310. 

^^ There can be no doubt that the Christian church, of which 
Alexander Campbell was the founder, received into its member- 
ship a large number of those who did not sympathize with the 
Methodist Episcopal church. 



EDUCATION AND THE CHURCH 299 

ginia, that ''the members of the Methodist Episcopal 
church made West Virginia" is only partly true. In- 
deed, ministers of that church were prominent in many 
of the mass-meetings which opposed secession, and 
Gordon Battelle, one of the ablest preachers of that 
sect in the northwest, was prominent and influential in 
the conventions, which attempted to reorganize the 
government of Virginia and eventually brought about 
the dismemberment of the state and the admission of 
West Virginia. But the influence of other church con- 
troversies, the political and educational movements of 
the times, together with the natural antipathy between 
the sections, are factors which were of equal impor- 
tance in bringing about the dismemberment of Vir- 
ginia. That the struggle between the Methodist 
churches was a potent factor must be conceded. 



CHAPTER X 

HISTORY OF POLITICAL PARTIES FROM 1851 TO 1861 

The years immediately following 1851 marked a 
brief period of political accord. In local politics the 
constitution of that year produced much the same effect 
as the compromise of the previous year had produced 
in national politics. Sectional controversies in the As- 
sembly sank into insignificance; Joseph Johnson, the 
first governor of Virginia to be elected by a vote of the 
people, was selected from the trans-Alleghany ; J. M. 
Mason, of the Valley, and R. M. T. Hunter, of the 
Tidewater, were elected to the United States Senate 
with little opposition; the state selected a practically 
solid Democratic delegation to Congress; and Demo- 
crats and Whigs vied with each other in their pro- 
fessions of devotion to the Compromise of 1850. 

The co-operation of the east in the banking legisla- 
tion and in the internal improvement schemes desired 
by the west contributed to political accord. Immedi- 
ately following the adoption of the new constitution 
the Assembly incorporated ten independent banks in 
towns west of the Blue Ridge. ^ True to former 
Democratic policies, the James River and Kanawha 
Canal Company was neglected;^ but large appropria- 
tions were made to the Virginia and Tennessee Rail- 

^ Acts of Assembly of 1851-52; National Intelligencer (weekly), 
June 10, 1852. 

* The James River and Kanawha Company was refused an ap- 
propriation to extend its works beyond Covington in the Valley. 

300 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 301 

road, and the scheme of connecting the western ter- 
minus of the James River Canal with the Ohio River by 
railroad was undertaken at state expense.^ From 1850 
to 1854 more turnpikes and railroad companies were in- 
corporated with the privilege of constructing works of 
internal improvement in the west than in all the years 
preceding.^ Very liberal appropriations were also made 
to the western turnpike companies, and this caused an 
acquiescence by the westerners in the more generous 
appropriations made to the various railroad companies 
operating east of the mountains. Speaking of what 
had formerly been the most disaffected section of the 
state, Governor Joseph Johnson, himself a resident of 
the trans-Alleghany section, was able to say, in his 
message to the Assembly of 1855 : 

The northwestern portion of the state is most happily 
situated. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad terminating at 
Wheeling and Parkersburg places it within sixteen hours of 
Baltimore and still nearer to Alexandria. The Hampshire and 
Loudoun road, .... the Northwestern Turnpike from Win- 
chester to Parkersburg, and the Staunton and Parkersburg turn- 
pike connecting those points, together with the network of 
turnpikes not macadamized, afford all the facilities for travel 

and transportation the most fastidious could desire It 

may truly be said that she wants little and asks less."^ 

*The Covington and Ohio Railroad was incorporated to con- 
nect the James and Kanawha river navigation (Thirty-ninth An- 
nual Report of the Board of Public Works, Doc. No. 17). See also 
Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Annual Reports of the 
James River and Kanawha Company; DeBow, Revic-u; XIII, 525, 
641. 

*See Acts of Assembly of 1850-51; 1852-53; 1853-54. 

^ House Documents, No. i, of the Assembly of 1855-56. 



302 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

With the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad nearing 
completion the same statement could have been made 
of the southwest. The only dissatisfaction on account 
of inadequate communications existed in the old Whig 
strongholds along the Kanawha Valley, but the pro- 
posed Covington and Ohio Railroad was intended for 
relief there. 

But forces were at work to terminate this brief 
period of activity in internal improvement and of 
political harmony. They first manifested themselves 
in national politics, when the Democratic state conven- 
tion of 1852 refused to incorporate into its platform a 
plank declaring the Compromise of 1850 to be a per- 
manent settlement of the questions therein embraced 
and adopted instead a plank declaring the doctrines 
of 1798 to be the fundamental principles of the Demo- 
cratic party.^ This action alienated many former 
Whigs as well as some Democrats, who desired to end 
the sectional agitation over negro slavery and to rele- 
gate the discussion of federal relations to the back- 
ground. It was, however, an effort of the party leaders 
to keep the Democratic party from disintegration 
and to divert the trend of political discussion from 
negro slavery. Of the inconsistency of the conven- 
tion's action the Lynchburg Virginian (Whig) said: 

The men who united in the adoption of this declaration 
know perfectly well they stand to each other direct antipodes in 
their construction of the resolutions of 'qS-'qq, the one party 
maintaining that they assert the right of secession at pleasure, 
and without accountability to the federal government; and the 

'^National Intelligencer, April 8, 1852. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 303 

other contending that they point out no other redress of griev- 
ances to the separate states, than the provisions of the Con- 
stitution, and the final appeal to arms. There were men in 
that body who believed that the right to quit the Union exists 
at all times with the states, to be exercised at their discretion; 
there were others who deny all such right and hold that seces- 
sion is treason/ 

The action of the Democratic representatives in 
Congress, in refusing to vote for a resolution declar- 
ing the Compromise of 1850 to be final, drove others 
from their party.^ But the Democrats were able to 
carry the state for Pierce by a good majority,^ and 
by the aid of a gerrymander they elected, in 1853, a 
solid delegation to Congress.^^ 

In the election of 1855 the Whigs revived under 
the name Know-Nothings, or Americans, who had 
become a powerful organization at the North during 
the discussions over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. The 
Know-Nothings, like their predecessors, were sectional 
in strength, drawing their chief support from areas 
which had formerly been Whig. If any differences 
existed in the sectional strength of the two parties the 
Know-Nothings were more popular in the east than 
the Whigs had been. The slogan 'Tut only Ameri- 
cans on watch tonight" appealed to many east Virgin- 

"^ National rntelligeucer (weekly), April 10, 1852, quoting the 
V^irginian. 

** Seven out of thirteen Democrats from Virginia voted against 
the resolution (ibid., April 8 and 17, 1852). 

* Pierce's majority was 15,281 {Whig Almanac, 1852, p. 53). 

"^^ National Intelligencer, May 26 and 31, 1853; i^^d-, June 4, 
1853. 



304 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

ians, who attributed their waning power in national 
councils to the foreign immigrants at the North. ^^ 
Before the new organization had become powerful 
politically even the Democratic press of the east looked 
with favor upon it. 

Know-Nothingism is partly right [said the Richmond En- 
quirer]. American citizenship ought not to be made dirt cheap. 
The sovereignty of this republic is in the people ; and every 
vagabond adventurer escaping from the jails and packed off 
from the poor houses of Europe, is not fit for sovereign citi- 
zenship in this country the moment his dirty rags and stinking 
carcass touch our shores.^^ 

Besides, the old-line Whigs concurred in the apparent 
effort of the Know-Nothings to put down the agita- 
tion of negro slavery.^ ^ 

The factors tending to preserve the former Demo- 
cratic strongholds intact were equally effective. Al- 
though the inhabitants of the west contained a large 
intersprinkling of English families of old standing, 
there were many among them in whose veins ran 
Scotch-Irish, German, and Irish blood, who almost 
invariably continued to be Democrats.^* It is sig- 
nificant that this was the period when Irish laborers 
came to Virginia in largest numbers and found homes 
on the cheap lands along the western railroads.^ ^ Al- 

" Wise, Seven Decades of the Union, 245; Wise, Wise, 175. 

'^December 12, 1854. 

^^ Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, II, 516. 

'* Koerner, Das deutsche Element in den Vereinigten Staaten, 
403. 

"This is the period when the Irish settlements were made in 
Lewis and neighboring counties. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 305 

though the westerners were intensely Protestant, the 
anti-CathoHc plank of the Know-Nothing party did 
not appeal to them. They continued to cherish the 
principles of the Declaration of Rights and Jefferson's 
Statute for Religious Liberty, each of which their 
ancestors had been instrumental in making effective. 
The prevailing tariff, though moderate, furthermore 
was objectionable to those voters, in both the east and 
the west, who desired cheap iron to be used in the con- 
struction of railroads.^ ^ Besides, the Democratic 
strongholds of the state at this time were engaged in 
a political "log-rolling," which had already brought 
good returns in the way of internal improvements and 
now held out flattering inducements of better things 
to come. Thus the northern Democrats of the west 
and the pro-southern Democrats of the east found it to 
their mutual advantage to co-operate in efforts to carry 
elections. ^''^ 

In the gubernatorial election of 1855 Henry A. 
Wise, of Accomac County, was the Democratic nomi- 
nee and Thomas S. Flournoy, of Halifax, the Know- 
Nothing. Flournoy secured his nomination at a 
conference of party leaders, but Wise was nominated 
by a state convention. Most of the eastern leaders 
opposed him, but his record in the constitutional con- 
vention of 1850-51 on the questions of internal im- 
provements, representation, and education made him 
popular with the voters of the west. Prior to the 

^'^ National Intelligencer (tri-weekly), January 12, 1856; De 
Bow, Review, XVIII, 117- 

^'^ Kanawha Valley Star, February 10, 1857. 



3o6 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1775-1861 

meeting of the state convention everything pointed to 
the nomination of Shelton F. Leake, who had a large 
following in the Piedmont and the Valley; but, when 
the trans-Alleghany delegation arrived, it was almost 
a unit for Wise. The trans-Alleghany and the Tide- 
water delegates united to secure his nomination. 

The canvass was a heated one and had an impor- 
tant bearing upon later developments. By his brilliant 
oratory and winning personality, Wise, an ardent pro- 
southern man, gained an influence over the young lead- 
ers, especially those of the west, and was able thereby 
to neutralize the conservative influences of such men 
as John Letcher, William Smith, and Leake, who 
opposed his nomination and continued to oppose his 
pro-southern policy.^ ^ It is significant that Wise's 
majority of 10,180 came almost wholly from w^est of 
the Blue Ridge^^ and that he made his chief fight 
against the Know-Nothings on the ground that they 
were abolitionists.^^ 

Wise's administration was characterized by a con- 
tinuous struggle between the conservative and radical 
wings of the Democratic party. Under the leadership 
of Hunter, wdio had become less enthusiastic for the 
South after the death of Calhoun, and Letcher, the 
conservatives tried to keep the subject of negro slavery 
in the background and refused to encourage the idea, 
which gradually became more prevalent in the east, 

"Hambleton, Va. Politics, 1855, and Life of Wise, 60 ff. 
'"Wise's majority east of the Blue Ridge was only 955 (Whig 
Almanac, 1856, 56). 

''^ Star of the Kanawha Valley, April 25, 1855. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 307 

that dismemberment and civil war were inevitable. 
Under the leadership of Wise, of the surviving nulli- 
fiers and seceders of 1832, and of a corps of young 
politicians the radicals set about to make the Demo- 
cratic party pro-southern and pro-slavery and at the 
same time to retain Wise's leadership in the west. For 
this purpose a large number of Democratic newspapers 
were established throughout the state, and the test of 
a true Democrat was made devotion to the South and 
her institutions. The leaders thus hoped to enlist a 
united Virginia in the programme then making for 
a united, self-sufficing, pro-slavery South. 

For a brief period after the election of 1855 the 
differences w^ithin the administration party remained 
beneath the surface. The west saw in Wise ''the 
champion of the Union-loving, indomitable Democracy 
of Virginia"-^ and remained loyal to him. Had he 
desired it, Virginia would have given him her undi- 
vided vote for the presidential nomination in 1856.^^ 
A united party under his leadership gave Buchanan the 
largest majority yet given by Virginia to any Demo- 
cratic candidate for the presidency,^^ and under the 

^Kanawha Valley Star, April 30, 1856. 

^ Most of the western counties passed resolutions indorsing 
Wise for the presidency in 1856 as did some of the eastern 
counties ; but he had no following in other states and declined the 
vote of Virginia on the ground thit no man from the South could 
be elected. Wise's influence was largely instrumental in securing 
the nomination of Buchanan (Tyler, Letters and Times of the 
Tylers, II, 520-26; Kanawha Valley Star,, February 13, 20, 27, 

1857). 

23 Buchanan's majority was 25,548 (Tribune Almanac, 1857, 5i>- 



3o8 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776^1861 

slogan "anti-abolitionism" the Democrats were able, 
in 1857, to carry every congressional district in the 
state. ^'* 

But internal changes were so rapid and diverse 
during these years that permanent political union 
between the east and the west was rendered impossible. 
The east sent delegates who took a prominent part in 
the southern commercial conventions,^^ forerunners of 
the southern Confederacy, and the sentiment there for 
southern independence daily became stronger. Ed- 
mund Ruffin and other industrial leaders now joined 
the politicians in the assertion that Virginia must have 
more slaves and better slave markets if she were to 
regain her fallen fortunes. ^^ These leaders also con- 
demned emancipation and colonization and favored 
the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton consti- 
tution. The eastern press frequently denounced the 
abolitionist tendencies of the west, those counties con- 
taining abolitionist colonies^'^ and periodicals^^ favor- 
able to abolition being threatened with ''a long and 

^ In the congressional contest of 1857 John S. Carlisle, who 
had been elected as a Know-Nothing by the old Whig counties of 
the Kanawha Valley, was defeated {Kanaivha Valley Star, June 2, 

1^57)- 

=^DeBow, Reviezv, XXIV, 570-84; XXVII, 94, 205, 219. 360, 
468. 

"-^Ihid., XXVI, 418-647. 

" The Eli Thayer colony was located in Wayne County, the 
Valley Mills colony in Wood County. There were few counties 
along the Ohio and in the northwest which did not contain abo- 
litionist settlements. 

^'* The Wellsbitrg Herald and Wheeling Intelligencer were Re- 
publican papers. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 309 

peaceful period of rest in which to enjoy the pleasures 
of negro worship." It is significant that the industrial 
and political leaders of the east now resumed their 
denunciations of "the political heresies brought from 
France by Thomas Jefferson."-^ 

On the other hand, the west took little interest in 
the southern commercial conventions, the one held at 
Richmond being attended by only four delegates from 
the trans- Alleghany. Frequent utterances, of which 
the following is an example, were made there against 
the southern programme: ''A union of all parties at 
the South for the defense of the South will produce a 
union of all parties at the North for the destruction of 
the South; and thus the two sections will be divided 
politically and the Union severed."^*^ A large number 
of the inhabitants of the west continued to believe 
slavery an economic evil and to entertain the idea that 
it would be eventually abolished, ^^ and the abolitionist 
newspapers of the northwest now denounced it as an 
''unmitigated curse to the soil of Virginia."^^ The 
westerners generally opposed the admission of Kansas 
under the Lecompton constitution, and the Wheeling 
Argus J a strong pro-southern paper, commented thus 
upon the attitude of the eastern prints upon that issue : 
"The Enquirer, the Examiner, and the Richmond 
South have over the intense discussion over Kansas 
and Governor Walker changed from the strictly 

=^DeBow, Reviezv, XXIV, 584; ibid.. XXVI, 415 ff. 

^° Kanazvha Valley Star, July 14, 1857. 

^^ Ibid., September 23, 1857. 

^'- Ibid., May 26, 1857, quoting the Wheeling Intelligencer. 



3IO SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

state-rights sentiment to the position of one defend- 
ing the administration of Buchanan and the course of 
the South."^^ In the west the threats of the eastern 
prints against the aboHtionists were interpreted as 
declarations from the party leaders of an intention to 
retard the industrial development of the state by pre- 
venting northern immigration thereto. 

You know not [said the Guyandotte Union] the import of 
such a threat. You know not what it awakens in the bosoms 
of honest patriots ! Leave Guyandotte and Cattletsburg "to the 
quiet and peaceful enjoyment of negro worship!" Oh! Ex- 
aminer! Examiner ! You know not how you sink the hearts of 
this people. "Thou hast wounded the spirit that loved thee." ^ 

Although eastern and western Virginia were united 
upon but one thing, namely, opposition to the move- 
ment of the lower South for reopening the foreign 
slave trade, many editors and politicians in both sec- 
tions tried to create the impression that the state was 
a unit politically. That their action was an incident in 
a party programme there can be little doubt. The 
ardent pro-southern newspapers, of which there were 
a number established in the west after 1854, were loud- 
est in such professions. In reply to an editorial com- 
ment in the Richmond South to the effect that east 
Virginia had, by her railroads and reforms, indoctri- 
nated the west on the subject of negro slavery and thus 
secured a united commonwealth, the editor of the 
Kanawha Valley Star denied that the sentiment in 

^ Ibid., September 8, 1857, quoting the Argus. 
^ Konazvha Valley Star, October 13, 1857, quoting the Guyan- 
dotte Union. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 311 

favor of negro slavery was more universal east of the 
Blue Ridge than west of it. "The people of the west 
are pro-slavery from principle," said he, "and we 
venture the assertion that there are more abolitionists 
east of the Blue Ridge than west of it."^^ The trans- 
montane editors were practically unanimous in their 
belief that the changes, which the east had experienced 
regarding negro slavery, had extended to the west.^^ 
The impression given by enthusiasts for the South 
created a false impression in the east of what might 
be expected of the west should the South decide to 
secede. To the very last many eastern editors and 
politicians continued to deny the rumors that the west 
could not be depended upon to play its part in the pro- 
gramme and cherished the delusion, "the union of 
Virginia is accomplished." 

The internal improvement legislation of Virginia 
during Wise's administration was determined largely 
by the programme for a united South. With those 
striving for this end the completion of the Covington 
and Ohio Railroad, to connect the James and the Ohio 
rivers, became a cherished scheme. The following 
from the Richmond Enquirer furnished some idea of 
the spirit which actuated them : 

It will be observed that two-fifths of the whole trans- 
Alleghany region is wholly isolated, that it has no communica- 
tion with the northern frontier except a precarious one up the 

^'^ Kanazvha Valley Star, August 31, 1858; ibid., September 22, 
1857. 

'"This is true only of those who edited Democratic news- 
papers. 



312 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 177^1861 

Ohio and none with eastern Virginia. Yet this very region is 
the seat of a large portion of the military strength of the 
state, containing, as it does, a majority of the white popula- 
tion. It is as if we had a citadel filled with men and outworks 
feebly manned, with no connection from one to the other. The 
Covington and Ohio Railroad passes through the heart of this 
region and will when finished pour its strength either upon the 
Seaboard by way of Staunton and Richmond or upon the north- 
ern frontier by way of Staunton and Harper's Ferry." 

That this programme had supporters in the west is 
shown from the following from the Kanawha Valley 
Star: 

We now come to the protection of our own people from the 
designs of our northern foes, .... the gradual preparation of 
Virginia for the great future struggle that every revolving year 
is hastening upon her. The struggle whose issue will be "State 
Rights and Constitutional Union" or a union of power un- 
tempered by law, unchecked by constitutional guarantees, ruled 
only by a fickle, irresponsible, fanatical majority.^ 

But it was not alone for the purpose of defense 
that the friends of -the Covington and Ohio Railroad 
desired its completion. They hoped by this means to 
tap the granary of the Union, the Northwest, to divert 
the mineral resources of the mountains to Richmond or 
Norfolk, thereby creating a rival commercial city to 
New York and Philadelphia, and thus to aid in the 
programme of a self-sufficing and united common- 
wealth. 

There were, however, many sectional interests 

^''Richmond Enquirer, August 10, 1855; DeBow, Reviezv, 
XIX, 445. 

'^Kanawha Valley Star, February 24, 1857. For similar state- 
ments see Speech of R. G. Morris (pamphlet). 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 313 

which opposed the completion of the Covington and 
Ohio Railroad. In the first place the James River and 
Kanawha Canal Company claimed a prior right to con- 
struct a railroad or a canal over the route designated 
for it. Many residents of the James River Valley and 
the southeast claimed that the proposed road would in- 
evitably divert trade from Virginia to Baltimore by 
way of the Shenandoah, and proposed instead a rail- 
road from some point on the Virginia and Tennessee 
Railroad to pass to the Ohio by way of the New and 
Kanawha rivers. ^^ The inhabitants of the northwest 
and the southwest, now enjoying the benefits of the 
Baltimore and Ohio and the Virginia and Tennessee 
railroads respectively, did not wish to tax themselves 
to tunnel the Alleghanies. In the Assembly of 1855-56 
the delegates from these sections voted against an 
appropriation to complete the proposed railroad."*^ 
These clashes of sectional interest, the financial panic 
of 1857, and the decline of Virginia's credit, due to 
the large appropriations made to the various internal 
improvement companies, rendered it impossible to 
prosecute work on the central line of improvements. 
Meanwhile the inhabitants of the Kanawha Valley 
became interested in securing the improved navigation 
of the Kanawha River. The proposed Covington and 
Ohio Railroad was to leave the Kanawha near Charles- 
ton and pass thence to the mouth of the Big Sandy 

^speech of Joseph Segar at the Internal Improvement Con- 
vention at White Sulphur Springs (pamphlet), 8. 

*^ Journal, House of Del, 1855-56, 486; Kanawha Valley Star, 
April 6, 1856. 



314 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

River by the most direct line. Because of the ready fa- 
ciHties afforded by the steamboat, the coal companies, 
of which there were a score or more doing business in 
or near Charleston, and the salt manufacturers desired 
to retain and even to improve the water navigation of 
the Kanawha.^^ As the Kanawha River was the only 
portion of the James River and Kanawha Canal Com- 
pany's works which then paid more than the expenses 
of operating, the westerners insisted that the additional 
expenditures made upon that w^ork should be made on 
the Kanawha River; the sluices and dams there were 
condemned as obstructions rather than aids to naviga- 
tion; many suits, which the western juries almost in- 
variably decided in favor of the plaintiff, were brought 
to recover damages from the James River and Kana- 
wha Canal Company for sunken coal and salt barges ; 
indeed, some shippers refused ''to pay tribute," resort- 
ing to various devices to cheat the toll-gatherers ;^2 and 
the public prints of the Kanawha Valley contained fre- 
quent editorial articles accusing the east of retarding 
the development of the west and impeaching the north- 
west and southwest on the charge of political log- 
rolling.^^ On this subject one editor said: "But there 
is one other very important reason why central trans- 
Alleghany is so far behind in railroads, etc., etc. It is 
because the parties of this part of Virginia have in 

** Twenty-first Annual Report of the James River and Kana- 
ivha Co., 71-85. 

^"^ Twentieth, Tzccnty- first, Twenty-second, and Twenty-third 
Annual Reports of the James River and Kanaivha Co. 

^"^ Kanawha Valley Star, February 10, 1857; if^id., November 
24, 1857. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 315 

years past been in direct opposition to the dominant 
party in the state. "^^ 

The movement in the Kanawha Valley led to the 
creation of the ''Kanawha Board," which was nothing 
more than a subcommittee of the board of directors of 
the James River and Kanawha Canal Company En- 
trusted with the improvements on the Kanawha River. 
But the hard times and the opposition of those inter- 
ested in the Covington and Ohio Railroad and in the 
improvements on the James River made it impossible 
for the local board to negotiate loans and forced it to 
disband without accomplishing anything.^^ 

The return of good times and the enactment of 
laws imposing heavy taxes restored Virginia's credit 
and revived interest in internal improvements. This 
interest was heightened by the fact that the relations 
between the North and the South were daily becoming 
more strained. The split which had occurred in the 
Democratic party intensified the general belief in the 
South that dismemberment of the Union was inevitable 
and increased the disposition to prepare for it. The 
Assembly of 1857-58, for example, made liberal 
appropriations for completing the Chesapeake and 
Ohio Railroad and incorporated numerous companies 
to build branch lines thereto. At the same time 

** Ibid., March 23, 1858. This was an ardent pro-southern 
paper and many of its editorials were written for the purpose of 
allying eastern with western Virginia and increasing the strength 
of the Democrat party. 

*^ Tzventy-fourth, Twenty-fifth, and Twenty-sixth Annual 
Reports of the James River and Kanazvha Co.; Kanawha Valley 
Star, November 24, 1859. 



3i6 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

William Ballard Preston was sent to France as agent 
of Virginia to negotiate for the establishment of a 
steamship line between Norfolk and Nantes.^^ Com- 
menting upon the plans of the political leaders the 
Kanazi'ha Valley Star said: ''It is in the power 
of this legislature in five years to build up cities and 
fleets, and an immense commerce both home and 
foreign. "^^ 

But Virginia was not united in this her last great 
effort to develop her resources, to unite her people, and 
to provide an adequate defense. The conservative 
counties of the northwest and the southwest continued 
to vote against the appropriations for the central line 
of improvements.^^ Still more decided opposition 
came from those interested in the completion of a con- 
tinuous waterway from the James to the Kanawha. As 
the necessity for union between the east and the west 
became more apparent, the scheme for a continuous 
waterway to the Ohio had been revived, receiving the 
support of Wise and others, who had formerly favored 
a railroad to the Ohio.^^ The James River Canal was 
denominated "sl gaping wound in the heart of the 

**'The Assembly of 1857-58 appropriated $800,000 and that of 
1859-60, $2,500,000. Almost one half-million of the appropriation 
of 1859-60 was used to grade the roadbed on which the Chesapeake 
and Ohio Railroad now runs from Charleston, West Virginia, to 
Huntington. 

*'^ January 19, 1858. 

** Practically all the counties of both the northwest and the 
southwest voted against the appropriations of 1857-58 and 1859-60 
(Kanawha Valley Star, April 6, 1858; ibid., April 16, i860). 

** Ibid., January 19, 1858; Wise, Wise, 221. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 317 

Commonwealth," and completion of the work was 
urged on the ground that a continuous canal would 
afford the only means whereby heavy freight, such as 
lumber, building-stone, and coal could be transported 
to the sea.^^ 

As a result of this agitation the Assembly of 1859- 
60 guaranteed the debt of the James River and Kana- 
wha Canal Company and vested the entire control of 
its management in the stockholders. It also authorized 
the company to borrow $2,500,000 to be used in con- 
tinuing the canal.^^ 

This action of the Assembly and the general revival 
of interest in a continuous canal from the James to 
the Ohio was in part the outcome of the movement for 
a steamship line between Virginia and France and of 
negotiations which Charles J. Faulkner, minister of 
the United States to France, had been conducting with 
certain French parties for the purchase by them of the 
rights and privileges of the James River and Kanawha 
Company. The Bellot family of Bordeaux and several 
other parties associated wdth them had become inter- 
ested in the "Sw^an Lands,"^- which the Assembly had 
relieved from the penalty of forfeiture and vested in 
John Peter Dumas to hold in trust for the heirs and 

^^Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the James River and Ka- 
nawha Co., 449 ff. ; Kanawha Valley Star, January 19, 1859. In 
1858 those interested in tl\e construction of a continuous canal 
published An Appeal in which its merits were fully set forth. 

^^The Assembly had appropriated only $2,500,000 for the con- 
struction of the Covington and Ohio Railroad. 

"These lands included several thousand acres of the best coal 
and timber lands in central West Virginia. 



3i8 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

creditors of Colonel Swan, an officer of the American 
Revolutionary Army. In 1859 M. Bellot and the direct- 
ors of the James River and Kanawha Canal Company 
entered into an agreement providing for the sale of the 
company's property to certain French parties and for 
the creation of a new company to be called ''The Vir- 
ginia Canal Company," to have a capital stock of not 
less than twenty millions. The new company was to 
have a charter similar to that of the James River and 
Kanawha Company and was to complete a continuous 
waterway from the Kanawha to the Ohio within a 
specified time. A ship line was also to be established 
between Virginia and France. ^^ 

These negotiations pended during the year i860 
and wxre encouraged by those striving for a united 
Virginia friendly to the South. After the election of 
Lincoln and the renewal of the secession movement 
many Virginians, especially those residing in the west, 
opposed carrying the southern programme for seces- 
sion and the formation of a confederacy into practice, 
but Governor Wise made the French negotiations a 
prominent reason for calling into extra session the As- 
sembly, which took the initial step to secession on the 
part of Virginia. The public press and politicians in 
possession of party secrets held out flattering promises 
to the west, provided she should remain loyal to the 
programme for a united South, and, when the leaders 
were hesitating between secession and loyalty to the 

" Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the James River and Kana- 
wha Co., 760 ff. : Forty-first Report of the Board of Public Works, 
41 fT. ; House Documents, No. 17, Assembly of 1859-60. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 319 

Union, the Assembly passed an act incorporating "The 
Virginia Canal Company" whereby the task of con- 
necting the James and the Kanawha by a continuous 
canal was intrusted largely to the French persons in- 
terested.^^ 

Thus the Civil War found the question of internal 
improvements a paramount one in the Kanawha Val- 
ley. Inaccessibility to markets, the fruitless results 
from public expenditures, the log-rolling of sectional 
political interests, and a lack of sympathy with features 
of the southern programme produced dissatisfaction 
with the east and eastern leaders. Had the James and 
Kanawha been connected commercially, the dismem- 
berment of Virginia by a line passing along'the top of 
the Alleghanies would have been rendered difficult if 
not impossible. 

During the last years of Wise's administration the 
political differences between the east and the wxst 
were more pronounced than the social, industrial, and 
commercial differences. The gap between the radical 
and conservative Democrats, confined as these factions 
were chiefly to the east and the west respectively, be- 
came daily wider and the opposition of the anti- 
administration parties, also sectional, became more 
bitter. 

In the gubernatorial contest of 1859 each wing of 
the Democratic party had its candidate. Wise and 
the radicals favored the nomination of John W. Brock- 
enbrough, an eastern man of strong pro-southern 

^Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the James River and Kana- 
wha Co.; Acts of Assembly of 1861. 



320 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

sympathy but well and favorably known in the west, 
where he had presided for years as judge of the west- 
ern district of Virginia. The Enquirer, now edited 
by Wise's favorite son, O. Jennings, and the younger 
politicians and editors were loud in their praise of 
Judge Brockenbrough. On the other hand, the con- 
servatives, led by Hunter, favored the nomination of 
"honest John" Letcher, the political idol of the Tenth 
Legion, the Democratic stronghold of the Valley. 
The Letcher boom was launched in Washington 
at a meeting of the Democratic congressmen from 
Virginia^^ and was meant to be a direct attack upon 
the radical policy of Wise and his followers. For this 
reason and because of the general belief that its out- 
come would determine whether or not Wise or Hunter 
should receive the vote of Virginia for the presidential 
nomination of i860, it attracted much interest both 
locally and nationally.''^ 

The contest between Brockenbrough and Letcher 
for the gubernatorial nomination marked a decided 
departure from the previous political contests in the 
state and was characterized by incidents of much sub- 
sequent political importance. Despite the fact that 
Virginians of all sections had persistently and con- 
sistently condemned northern politicians for bringing 
the question of negro slavery into politics, it now be- 
came the leading political issue within their own state. 
The eastern prints, especially the Richmond Enquirer, 

^Kanawha Valley Star, October 12, 1858. 

^ New York Tribune, June 16, 1859; Richmond Whig, March 
3, 1859. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 321 

denounced Letcher as an abolitionist and a freesoiler.^^ 
"It was in the darkest hour," said the Enquirer, ''when 
the Wilmot proviso, the abohtion of slavery in the 
District of Columbia, and the abolition of the slave 
trade between the states were paramount, that John 
Letcher was found encouraging the abolition senti- 
ments of the Ruffner Pamphlet."^^ In fact, the Ruff- 
ner Pamphlet of 1847 and John Letcher's connection 
with it became the main issues in the canvass. The 
nature of the opposition to Letcher arrayed the western 
newspapers in his defense^^ and called forth long 
editorial articles and enthusiastic resolutions to defend 
his course in favor of the abolition of negro slavery in 
western Virginia. ^^ 

Of the many incidents of political consequence 
connected with the Brockenbrough-Letcher contest 
the Wise-Clemens duel was possibly the most im- 
portant. When the Virginia congressmen had agreed 
upon Letcher, one of their number, for the guber- 
natorial nomination, Sherrard Clemens, who rep- 
resented the northwestern district, resolved to side- 
track Brockenbrough. Accordingly he waited upon 
him and succeeded in getting from him a statement to 

"'Richmond Whig, January 7, 1858; ihid., March 15, 1859; 
Richmond Enquirer, November 2, 1858 ; Kanawha Valley Star, July 
6, 1858; ibid., October 19, 26, 1858; ihid., November 9, 16, 1858. 

^Richmond Enquirer, November 2, 1858. 

■^'The Republican as well as many of the Whig papers were 
favorable to his candidacy. 

^'^ Richmond Enquirer, November 26, 1858; Kanawha Valley 
Star, November 16, 1858. 



322 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

the effect that he was not a candidate for the office of 
governor. Immediately Clemens wrote letters to the 
Richmond Enquirer and other papers saying that 
Brockenbrough had authorized him to withdraw his 
name from the contest. This called forth a letter from 
Judge Brockenbrough denying that he had authorized 
Clemens to speak for him and again asserting that he 
was not a candidate for the office of governor, but that 
he would accept the honor, should it be offered him. 
A caustic correspondence between Clemens and O. 
Jennings Wise, of the Enquirer, the leader of the 
Brockenbrough supporters, ensued ; the lie was passed ; 
and a duel, in which Clemens received a wound almost 
fatal, followed.^ ^ 

So intense was feeling in the northwest against the 
Wise programme and eastern radicalism that Clemens' 
constituents, with whom he was very popular, took up 
the fight for him. The ardent pro-southerners made a 
fruitless effort to prevent his renomination for election 
to Congress, but they were unable to carry a single 
county against him. Travelers who passed through 
the northwest at this time believed that the feeling 
against the Wises was so intense and the ''gun-powder 
popularity" of Clemens so great that he could have 
been re-elected on an independent ticket. ^- 

In the light of subsequent history the Wise-Clem- 
ens duel became doubly significant. It was Clemens, 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, September 14, and following dates; 
Kanawha Valley Star, September 21 and 30, 1858. 

^Wheeling Intelligencer, February 18 and 19, 1859; ibid,, Janu- 
ary 17, 1859. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 323 

yet Upon crutches, who, upon the adoption of the 
ordinance of secession by Virginia, led the western 
delegates to his rooms in the Ford Hotel, where the 
first steps leading to the formation of West Virginia 
were taken. 

Letcher received the Democratic nomination for 
governor, and William L. Goggin that of the opposi- 
tion party. But the question of negro slavery con- 
tinued to be the main issue in the contest between them. 
The fact that Goggin was an eastern man and closely 
identified with the slave-holding interests caused the 
voters of that section to rally about him, whereas the 
voters of the west rallied about Letcher for directly 
opposite reasons. Following the cue of the Richmond 
Whig the eastern prints repeated the charges of free- 
soilism made against Letcher, quoting copiously from 
the Ruffner Pamphlet; while Governor Wise and the 
Richmond Enquirer gave him only a half-hearted sup- 
port, both being at times accused of favoring Goggin.^^ 
On the other hand, the western prints, irrespective of 
party affiliations in many cases, continued to defend 
Letcher's position on the abolition question. 

The following statement from the Richmond Whig 
and the answer thereto are typical of the editorial 
contests which took place between the eastern and 
western writers at this time : 

We impeach him [Letcher] of seeking to divide this glorious 
old Commonwealth into two distinct and hostile parties, and 
we impeach him of trying to abolitionize the western half! We 

^^ Kanawha Valley Star, May 24, 1859; Richmond Whig, March 
24, April 22, May 2$, 1859- 



324 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

impeach him of warring upon the foundation interests of the 
state — upon the institution of slavery itself and of endeavoring 
to exterminate it root and branch; 

and the reply : 

It is more particularly that part of the sentence which 
speaks of slavery as "the foundation interest of the state'' that 
we have singled out and it is to it in particular that we call 
the attention of the white working men of western Virginia. 
We ask them if they are disposed to enter into an opposition 
contest upon this issue with John Letcher, Do they for this 
reason also impeach John Letcher?^ 

Notwithstanding the effort of many party leaders 
to fight the contest on national issues, both Letcher and 
Goggin vied with each other in demonstrating to the 
east their allegiance to negro slavery and the South 
and in making the slavery question the paramount 
issue of the campaign. ^^ But the record of each con- 
demned him. By many Goggin was looked upon as 
the protege of John Minor Botts of Richmond; his 
vote against the admission of Texas stood against him ; 
and his devotion to the Compromise of 1850 had 
ceased to be a political virtue. But Letcher had only 
recently repudiated his abolitionist record, and his 
affiliation with the conservatives was regarded with 
suspicion. ^^ 

Notwithstanding the fact that each candidate stood 
upon a pro-slavery platform, there can be no doubt 
that Letcher owed his election to his former utterances 

'^Wheeling Intelligencer, January 15, 1859. 

"^Richmond Whig, June 10, 1859; Wheeling Intelligencer, May 
9, 1859; Parkershiirg News, April 28, 1859. 
^^ Kanawha Valley Star, May 24, 1859. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 325 

in favor of abolition and to the anti-slavery sentiment 
of the west. East of the Blue Ridge he carried only 
two congressional districts, each of which was located 
in a comparatively non-slaveholding portion of the 
Piedmont. On the other hand, he lost only one con- 
gressional district west of the Blue Ridge, that in the 
southwest, which had long been largely slave holding. 
The two congressional districts in the northwest, which 
bordered on Ohio and Pennsylvania, gave him almost 
4,500 majority in a total majority of 5,569.^^ 

The contest between Letcher and Goggin attracted 
attention throughout the entire Union. ^* Many north- 
ern writers erroneously spoke of the result as a true 
test of the relative anti- and pro-slavery strength of 
Virginia and looked upon it as a probable indication 
of what might be expected, should the ardent southern 
sympathizers insist upon forming a southern confed- 
eracy. But the zealous young Democratic editors, who 
spoke for the southern programme in western Virginia, 
refused to concede that negro slavery had been an 
issue in the campaign and insisted that only southern 
rights and political theories in general had been in- 
volved.^^ The eastern Democrats of the Wise type 
would have been delighted with the defeat of Letcher, 
while the Richmond Whig insisted that, inasmuch as 
Buchanan had carried the state by almost 26,000, the 

^Tribune Almanac (i860), 51; Richmond Enquirer, May 27, 

1859. 

^Richmond Whig, April 26, 1858; ibid., August 5. 1859. quot- 
ing the National Era; Wheeling Intelligencer, March 24, 1859, 
quoting the Ohio State Journal. 

^'•' Kana-wha Valley Star, June 21, 1859. 



326 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

result of this election was equivalent to a defeat for 
the Democrats.'^^ 

That both the cause and the significance of Letch- 
er's election were understood in the east is shown from 
the following editorial statements from the Richmond 
Whig: 

We repeat that Letcher owes his election to the tremendous 
majority he received in the Northwest Free Soil counties, and 
he owes his tremendous majorities in these counties to his anti- 
slavery record By the vote of Virginia and Virginians 

William L. Goggin is today the Governor elect of the state by 
thousands. But the Yankeeism and Black Republicanism of 
the Pan Handle and other portions of the Northwest have 
carried John Letcher into the Gubernatorial chair, and we con- 
gratulate the eastern Democracy upon their abolition allies and 
the shameful triumph they have achieved/^ 

In the following manner the Whig recommended 
Letcher to the consideration of the Republican state 
convention to be held in Wheeling in i860 for indorse- 
ment as a suitable candidate for the presidential nom- 
ination : "His majority comes from that neighborhood, 
and his Ruffner antecedents entitle him to the consid- 
eration of a convention proposed to be held where his 
best friends reside. "^^ 

The gubernatorial election found the contest be- 
tween Wise and Hunter for the support of Virginia 
for the presidential nomination of the Democratic 
party well under way. Letcher's victory was generally 
regarded as a victory for Hunter also, but Wise's 

^"June 3, 1859. 

''^Richmond Whig, June 7, 1859. 

''^Wheeling Intelligencer, June 10, 1859, quoting the Whig. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 327 

devotion to the pro-southern programme and his radi- 
calism had not yet sufficiently alienated his western 
admirers to make smooth sailing for his opponent. 
When the state convention met in i860, neither candi- 
date was able to control it, so evenly were their forces 
divided. Consequently no effort was made to instruct 
for either Hunter or Wise, and the several congres- 
sional districts were requested to choose between them 
in their selection of delegates to the Charleston Con- 
vention.*^^ 

In the hotly contested canvass which followed 
Hunter stood for Buchanan's administration, the ad- 
mission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 
and the theory of state rights as expounded in 1798. 
Although in favor of non-intervention on the part of 
Congress to prevent slave property from being carried 
into the territories, he thought this question should be 
kept in the background as no issues were likely to arise 
w^hich would involve it. On the other hand. Wise had 
repudiated both the Buchanan administration and the 
admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitu- 
tion"^ and insisted on the doctrine of southern rights 
as opposed to state rights. He believed that the 
Democratic platform should assert the constitutional 
right of any owner to take his property, of whatever 
description, into any and all territory. He had already 
proposed to the Democratic governors of the southern 

''^Richmond Enquirer, February 28, i860; Tyler, Letters and 
Times of the Tylers, II, 557. 

" Wise was not opposed to the non-intervention doctrine, but 
he insisted that the Lecompton constitution did not represent the 
wishes of the voters of Kansas. 



328 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

states a conference to take measures to protect "the 
honor and interest of the shareholding states. ""^^ To 
the surprise of many, Hunter received practically all 
the delegates from west of the Blue Ridge together 
with several of those from the east, who, under the 
unit rule, cast the vote of Virginia for him to the last 
in the Charleston Conventions^ 

Aside from his position on national questions there 
were local issues which contributed to Wise's loss of 
popularity in the west and to Hunter's success there. 
The inhabitants of that section had gradually ceased 
to look upon Wise as the patron of internal improve- 
ments and common free schools and had come to see in 
him what he boastfully considered himself, *'A bold 
man in place, having their confidence, "^"^ and thus able 
to effect a union of the southern people. The western 
prints now frequently spoke of him as ''bold without 
discretion and generous without judgment. "^^ The 
west hated Wise's mouthpiece, his son O. Jennings, 
whose record as a duelist shocked even those who did 
not hesitate to decide their differences on the "field of 
honor." Besides, Wise's copious political letters, each 
overflowing with vaunting ambition, were as con- 

■^"^ Tyler, Letters and Tiwes of the Tylers, II, 530-60; Wise, 
Wise, 236; Wise, Seven Decades, 246; Richmond Whig, July 9 
and Sept. 30, 1859; Kanawha Valley Star, October 12, 19, 1858; 
tbid., July 12, 1859; House Doc, No. i, 1857-58. 

"The Tenth Legion elected two delegates friendly to Douglas 
(Richmond Enquirer, August 11, 13, i860). 

"Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, II, 521. 

''^Kanawha Valley Star, August 16, 1859. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-^1 329 

temptuously received by the westerners as by others J ^ 
But strange as it may seem, the west repudiated Wise's 
course in connection with the John Brown affair. Not- 
withstanding the fact that many mass-meetings held 
there indorsed his action in giving prompt rehef to 
Harper's Ferry and in taking precautions to prevent 
similar attacks, a second thought convinced the in- 
habitants that they had little to fear from "clandestine 
raids,"" that Brown was a misguided fanatic, and that 
Wise was seeking to make political capital out of the 
whole affair and to complete the programme for a 
united South.^^ Accordingly they opposed the reso- 
lution to call a conference of the southern states^^ and 
the bill to establish a state armory and the bill to pro- 
vide for the better organization of the state militia.^ ^ 
They also looked upon the proposed plan of boycotting 
the North as suicidal, some counties passing resolu- 
tions to condemn it, as well as the measures taken to 
arm the state.^^ That a lack of sympathy with this 

'» Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, II, 55 1 ; ^^"^ ^^^^ 
Herald, July 13, 1859; Richmond Enquirer, November 26, 1858; 
Richmond Whig, August 16, 1859. 

^ Kanazvha Valley Star, December 26, 1859; ibid., April 2, 
i860; Richmond Enquirer, January 6, i860. 

^^The vote was: noes 90, ayes 42 (House Journal [1859-60], 

413). 

'"2 For the purpose of defense the state was divided into five 
military districts, but the two composed of the trans-Alleghany 
and Valley counties, although more exposed and containing more 
free white men, had very much smaller companies than those east 
of the Blue Ridge (Richmond Enquirer, May 25, i860). 

^^ Kanawha Valley Star, December 29, 1859; «&'^v Ap"! 
16, i860; Wheeling Intelligencer, January 21, 23, i860. 



330 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

programme marked the decline of Wise's influence and 
popularity in the west the western prints furnish 
abundant evidence. 

In the presidential election of i860 Virginia had 
four electoral tickets in the field, viz., two Democratic 
tickets pledged to Breckenridge and Douglas respec- 
tively, the Republican ticket, and the Constitutional 
Union ticket. Her electoral vote went to the Consti- 
tutional Union candidates. Bell receiving, however, 
only about four hundred more popular votes than 
Breckenridge.^^ The accompanying map shows the 
sectional character of the vote given each candidate. 
The Douglas vote came chiefly from three sections, 
namely, two counties of the Valley within the bounds 
of the Tenth Legion, and the old Democratic counties, 
Monongalia and Cabell, the one located in the north- 
west, the other in the extreme southwest, but each 
bordering upon free territory. The votes given Lin- 
coln came almost wholly from the counties of the 
northwest, the Pan Handle alone giving him almost 
twelve hundred in a total vote of 1,929. A large part 
of the other votes given him came from the Northern 
Neck, from Loudoun, Alexandria, Fairfax, and Prince 
William counties, and were given by New England 
abolitionists who had recently settled there and were 
making an effort to reclaim Virginia's worn-out lands 
as well as to make them free territory. Breckenridge 
received his chief support from the southwest, the 
northwest, and a be't of counties extending through 

^The popular vote was: Bell, 74,68i ; Breckenridge, 74,323; 
Douglas, 16,290; and Lincoln, 1,929 (Tribune Almanac, 1861, 50). 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 331 

the northeastern portion of the state, the old Demo- 
cratic strongholds, which had been able to combine and 
control Virginia politics ever since 1850. It is sig- 
nificant that the Bell vote came chiefly from the belt 
of former Whig counties extending from the Atlantic 
Coast to the Ohio River by way of the James and the 
Kanawha. A comparison of this map with that of the 
Whig and Democratic counties in the Assembly of 
1834-35 shows that a large number of the counties 
which voted for Bell, in i860, were Whig at an earlier 
date. 

The Douglas Democrats stood for the doctrine of 
popular sovereignty as advocated by their leader and 
for the principles of 1798. They were devoted to the 
Union and were, almost without exception, opposed to 
the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton consti- 
tution. They were unable to increase their ranks, 
largely because of the fact that they represented no 
sectional interest, because their leader was looked upon 
as responsible for the renewal of the sectional struggle 
between the North and the South, which was menacing 
the Union, and because of the custom then so prevalent 
in Virginia of adhering to party organization. It is 
significant that the votes given Douglas came largely 
from those counties wdiere the local press broke tlie 
chain of political custom by supporting him. In each 
of the four counties carried by him, the local news- 
papers favored his election, and the Richmond South, 
which had formerly favored his nomination, but had 
ceased to be published, was largely instrumental in 
securing the very large vote given him in Richmond 



332 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

City and Chesterfield County.^^ Had the Democratic 
press, which, as has been shown, was largely in the 
hands of pro-southern editors, given Douglas better 
support, thus removing the stigma of a breach of party 
faith and bringing his candidacy to the attention of the 
rural and non-slaveholding communities, there can be 
little doubt that he would have received a larger vote 
in the state. But, as it was, the Breckenridge Demo- 
crats had both the press and the political organization, 
which, at this time, were all-powerful in the state. 

The Breckenridge Democrats professed to stand 
unitedly upon the doctrines of 1798. That the con- 
servative, or western, and the radical, or eastern, wings 
of their party differed, however, in their respective 
interpretations of those doctrines there can be no doubt. 
They were yet divided by the same differences as had 
existed in the party, when Letcher and Brockenbrough, 
Hunter and Wise had contended for its leadership. 
Possible explanations of why the western wing did 
not desert Breckenridge and support Douglas have 
been attempted. In addition it should be said that, as 
the representative of Henry Clay's old district in 
Congress and as the reputed heir to much of the Great 
Pacificator's conservatism, Breckenridge had long en- 
joyed great popularity in western Virginia. ^^ 

The supporters of Bell acted largely in the capacity 
of an opposition party, and their total vote, when com- 

•^^ Richmond City gave Douglas 753 votes, Chesterfield County 
588. Roger A. Prior, who had edited the Richmond South, had 
now become joint editor of the Washington States and Union. 

'^Kanawha Valley Star, July 2, 1856. 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 ^^^ 

pared with that given Douglas and Breckenridge, was 
no greater than their usual minority poll. So bitter 
was their feeling against the Democrats, of whatever 
type, that the Richmond Whig, their mouthpiece, 
pledged the Whigs to "support Seward a thousand 
times sooner than any Democrat, Northern or South- 
ern, in the land."^"^ Like the Breckenridge Democrats, 
the opposition party was divided into an eastern and 
western faction, both of which were, however, more 
conservative than the eastern wing of the Brecken- 
ridge party. The name applied to this new party, 
"Constitutional Union," together with the fact that 
it was the heir to the Whig traditions, is almost con- 
clusive evidence that those who supported its candi- 
dates were, regardless of location, sincere in their 
devotion to the Union. But that the eastern and the 
western wings of this party differed in their respective 
interpretations of the term "constitutional union" 
almost as widely as did those of the Breckenridge 
Democrats in their interpretations of the doctrines 
of 1798 is certain. 

As is frequently the case in political contests, so in 
this one : the party casting the smallest number of 
votes was an important one. In less than one year 
after this election took place more than one-half of the 
voters in what is now West Virginia had become 
Republicans. Consequently some space will be given 
to a consideration of what the Republican party in 
Virginia stood for in i860. The Republican platform, 
adopted by a state convention w^hich met at Wheeling, 

*" September 30, 1859. 



334 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

May 2, i860, repudiated both the old parties. It 
claimed that opposition was no longer necessary or 
advisable and that the Democratic party, under the 
leadership of Toombs, Yancey, and Davis, had ceased 
to be the party of "Old Hickory" and had become a 
"Southern-British-Antitariff-Disunion party." It al- 
leged that the cotton-planters had made war upon the 
manufacturing interests and that they were seeking to 
drive manufacturers into the production of agricul- 
tural products that slave capital might be maintained 
more cheaply. It also alleged that slave capital had 
encroached upon the personal rights of the free white 
men of the west, the farmers and artisans there being 
weighed down with capitation, income, license, and 
various other forms of taxes to be used for the con- 
struction of works of internal improvement in the 
east in order that the products of slave labor might 
find an easy market, while slave property was prac- 
tically privileged, paying only $300,000 taxes annually 
when it should pay $3,000,000; that the products of 
slave labor, tobacco, corn, wheat, and oats were ex- 
empt from taxation, whereas the products of white 
labor, cattle, hogs, sheep, and horses were taxed; that 
whereas a negro slave under the age of twelve was 
regarded as privileged property, and as such exempt 
from taxation, colts, calves, lambs, and pigs were 
listed; and that whereas the slave-owner paid only 
$1.20 taxes annually on a slave valued at $1,200 or 
more, the small merchant with a capital of $600 was 
made to pay $60. This platform, as well as the vari- 
ous resolutions adopted by the local conventions of 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 335 

the Republicans, acknowledged the right of the slave- 
owner, under the laws of Virginia, to the peaceful 
possession of his property and pledged the Republicans 
to respect that right.^^ But when Francis H. Pierpoint 
and other Republican leaders stumped the counties of 
the northwest in behalf of their ticket, they carried 
w^th them tax receipts which they offered as evidence 
of the economic evils of negro slavery to western 
Virginia.^^ A casual study of the history of the 
formation of the Republican party in western Virginia 
will be sufficient to convince one that its origin was 
due more largely to a conflict of economic interests 
between the east and the west than to the existence in 
the latter section of theories regarding the equality of 
men or of feelings of love or even pity for the negro. 
Neither the explanation of Mr. Rhodes, to the 
effect that the election of Lincoln was a triumph of the 
''noblest conservatism"^^ nor the other explanation 
more often given, and doubtless truer of the results 
in the country at large, that the election of i860 re- 
sulted in a triumph for the radicals of both sections, 
those of the North being led by Lincoln and those of 
the South by Breckenridge, explains the result of the 
election of i860 in Virginia. This is true, notwith- 
standing the fact that Virginia was in many respects 
a microcosm of the nation at that time. When con- 
sidered from any standpoint, the election in Virginia 

88 ly heeling Intelligencer, May 3, i860. 

^^ Ibid., April 7, 10, i860; ibid., May 22, 24, 29, i860; ibid., 
September 6, i860. 

""^Rhodes, History of the United States, II, 502. 



336 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

was a decided victory for conservatism. True, the 
active germs of radicalism of much the same varieties 
as had contested in the nation at large were present 
in the handful of Republicans at the northwest and in 
the pro-southern wing of the Breckenridge party, con- 
fined for the most part to the east. But the Republican 
party was small and the pro-southern wing of the 
Democratic party was not a much greater factor than 
it had been in the political contests immediately pre- 
ceding the election of i860. That the western wing 
of the Breckenridge party acted conservatively and out 
of devotion to the Union there can be no doubt, be- 
cause those counties of the northwest which gave 
Breckenridge almost their entire vote had within less 
than two years almost as many soldiers in the Union 
army as they had polled votes in i860. That the vot- 
ers in the other leading parties were actuated by a 
devotion to the Union and by conservatism will hardly 
be questioned. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the Union was a 
subject of important consideration and the verdict of 
each of the political parties was in favor of its preser- 
vation, a close study of the election of i860 in Virginia 
reveals another fact, namely, that state rights was a 
subject of almost equal importance. The Constitu- 
tional Union party defended the Union of the fathers, 
the Breckenridge party the doctrines of 1798, and each 
of the other parties insisted that the states had powers 
which the federal government could not exercise. 
That the east and the west dififered in their respective 
theories as to where the ultimate sovereignty resides 



POLITICAL PARTIES, 1851-61 337 

has been repeatedly shown in this study. Doubtless 
the east believed the states sovereign and "in duty 
bound" to protect their rights and defend their terri- 
tory. But the diversity of opinion as to the nature 
of the federal government was so great even there and 
the devotion to the Union so strong that the inhab- 
itants of this section had never been able to agree upon 
a means for protecting their rights. Some refused to 
recognize that rights had been infringed in a given 
case, others insisted on fighting in the Union, others 
on the right of a state to nullify federal laws, and 
still others on the constitutional right of peaceful seces- 
sion. But, when it came to the question of defending 
the state's territory, these differences of opinion im- 
mediately crystallized and the east presented a united 
front to defend the sovereignty of the state. On the 
other hand, the inhabitants of the west had never 
doubted the ultimate sovereignty of the federal Union. 
Thus when it came to a choice of allying themselves 
with the Union or the state in a contest to determine 
the ultimate sovereign, they too did not hesitate as to 
their course. 

After Lincoln's election, the consequent secession 
of the southern states, and the threatened resort to 
force on the part of both the Union and the seceding 
states the east and the west, each standing for their 
respective theories regarding the nature of the federal 
Union, struggled for control of the state with un- 
exampled vigor. The west fought for delay, opposing 
the proposed extra session of the Assembly and a 
constitutional convention, but the east held out and 



338 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

secured both. While these bodies dehberated, the 
germ of radicahsm in the handful of Republicans at 
the northwest fed upon the discontent occasioned by 
the conflicts between the churches, the inadequate 
facilities for internal communication and education, 
and the burden of unjust taxation and, throughout the 
district already prepared by the Letcher-Goggin cam- 
paign of 1859, grew into a formidable party organiza- 
tion resolved to stand by the Union. On the other 
hand, that germ of radicalism in the eastern wing of 
the Breckenridge party, wdiich had maintained a pre- 
carious existence upon the movement for a united 
South and the inspiration of Wise, Ruffin, and others, 
was now resuscitated and developed into a well-organ- 
ized party of much greater vitality than its eastern 
prototypes of 1798, 1832, and 1850. Under the influ- 
ence of later events it was impossible to prevent a clash 
between these two parties ; but it is not the purpose of 
this study to enter into a discussion of the conse- 
quences, to show how the advocates of state sov- 
ereignty carried Virginia out of the Union, and the 
radicals of the northwest in turn dismembered the 
''Mother of Commonwealths," 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

There are no general or local histories of much 
value for the study of that part of Virginia's history 
treated in this monograph. It is necessary to rely 
almost wholly upon state and federal public documents 
and the newspapers. The principal sources used in 
this study may be divided as follows : 

I. GENERAL AND LOCAL HISTORIES OF VIRGINIA 

1. Brown, Alexander. The Genesis of the United States. 2 
vols. Boston, 1890. 

2. . The First Republic in America. Boston, 1898. 

3. Bruce, Philip Alexander. Economic History of Virginia 
in the Seventeenth Century. 2 vols. New York, 1896. 

4- • Social Life in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 

Richmond, 1907. 

5. CAiiPBELL, CH.ARLES. Introduction to the History of the 
Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia. Richmond, 1847. 

6. Doddridge, Rev. Joseph. Notes on the Settlement and 
Indian Wars of the Western Part of Virginia and Pennsylvania. 
Wellsburg, Va., 1824. 

7. FooTE, William Henry. Sketches of Virginia, Historical 
and Biographical. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1850. 

8. HowisoN, Robert Reid. A History of Virginia from Its Dis- 
covery and Setdement by Europeans to the Present Time. 
2 vols. Philadelphia, 1848. 

9. Howe, Henry. Historical Collections of Virginia. Charles- 
ton, S. C, 1852. 

10. Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia. Phila- 
delphia (ed. 180 1.) 

II. Johnson, David E. A History of the Middle New River 
Setdements and Contiguous Territory. Huntington, W. Va., 
1906. 

339 



340 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

12. Kercheval, Samuel. A History of the Valley of Virginia. 
Winchester, Va., 1833. 

II. SPECIAL MONOGRAPHS, ARTICLES, AND WORKS 

1. Adams, Herbert Baxter. Thomas Jefferson and the Uni- 
versity of Virginia, with Sketches of Other Colleges in Virginia. 
Washington, 1888. 

2. Anderson, Frank Maloy. Virginia and Kentucky Resolu- 
tions. Printed in the American Historical Review, Vol. V. 

w-^. Chandler, J. A. C. History of Representation in Virginia. 
Printed in the Johns Hopkins University Studies, Vol. XIV. 

4. . History of Suffrage in Virginia. Printed in the 

Johns Hopkins University Studies, Vol. XIX. 

5. Collins, Wingfield Hazlitt. Domestic Slave Trade in the 
United States. New York, 1904. 

6. Dodd, William E. Chief Justice Marshall and Virginia. 
Printed in the American Historical Review, Vol. XII. 

7. GoocH, — . — . Prize Essay on Agriculture. Printed in the 
Lynchburg Virginian, July 4, 1833. 

8. Grigsby, Hugh Blair. Virginia Convention of 1829-30. 
Richmond, 1854. 

9. . The Virginia Convention of 1776. Richmond, 1855. 

10. . History of the Federal Convention of 1788. Printed 

in the Virginia Historical Collection (New Series), Vols. IX 
and X. 

11. Haskins, Charles H. The Yazoo Land Company, 1891. 
Printed in the American Historical Association Papers, Vol. 
IV, No. 4. 

12. HuLBERT, Archer Butler. The Old National Road. Co- 
lumbus, Ohio, 190 1. 

13. . Washington and the West. New York, 1905. 

14. Hunt, Gaillard. James Madison and Religious Liberty. 
Printed in the American Historical Association Report, 1901, 
Vol. I. 

15. KtTHN, Oscar. German and Swiss Settlements of Colonial 
Pennsylvania. New York, 1901. 

16. Parton, James. Thomas Jefferson a Reformer of Old Vir- 
ginia. Printed in Atlantic Monthly, July, 1872. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



341 



17. Phillips, Ulrich B. Origin and Growth of Southern 
Black Belts. 1906. Printed in American Historical Review, 
Vol. XI. 

18. RuFFNER, W. H. The Public School System. Printed in 
the Richmond Enquirer, May 12, 1876. 

19. ScHURiCHT, Hermann. History of the German Element in 
Virginia. Baltimore, 1898-1900. Printed in the Annual 
Report of the Society for the History of the Germans in Mary- 
land. 

20. Slaughter, Philip. The Virginia History of African Coloni- 
zation. Richmond, 1855. 

21. Stanwood, Edward. A History of the Presidency. Boston, 
1906. 

22. . American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth 

Century. Boston and New York, 1903. 

23. Tremain, Mary. Slavery in the District of Columbia. New 
York, 1892. 

24. Winsor, Justin. The Westward Movement. Boston, 1897. 

III. PAMPHLETS AND SPEECHES 
It is impossible in every case to determine the date and place of 
publication of pamphlets. 

1. Brodnax, William H. Speech Delivered in the Slavery 
Debate of 1831-32. 

2. Dew, W. R. Review of the Debates on the Abolition of Slavery, 
in the Legislature of Virginia, in the Winter of 183 1 and 1832. 
Richmond, 1832. 

3. GooDE, William O. Speech in the Virginia Legislature of 
1831-32. Richmond, 1832. 

4. Harrison, Jesse Burton. Review of the Speech of Thomas 
Marshall, in the House of Delegates of Virginia, on the Aboli- 
tion of Slavery. 1832. Printed in the American Quarteriy 
Review (December, 1832), and in the African Repository 
(March, 1833). 

5. Johnson, Chapman. Oration on the Late Treaty with France. 
Staunton, Va., 1804. 

6. McDow^ell, James. Speech in the Legislature of 1831-32. 
Richmond, 1832. 



342 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

7. Morris, R. G. Speech on Internal Improvement. Delivered 
at White Sulphur Springs, 1854. 

8. RuFFNER, Henry. An Address to the People of Virginia by a 
Slaveholder of West Virginia. Reprinted, 1862, at Wheeling, 
W. Va. 

9. Segar, Joseph. Speech Delivered at White Sulphur Springs, 
1854. 

10. Smith, Wesley. Defense of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
To be found in the office of the Pittsburg Christian Advocate, 
Pittsburg, Pa. 

11. WiLLEY, Waitman T. Speech Delivered in the Constitutional 
Convention of 1850-51. Richmond, 185 1. In the Library 
of the West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. 

IV. BIOGRAPHIES, MEMOIRS, AND LETTERS OF 
CONTEMPORARIES 

1. Adams, Charles Francis, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. 
12 vols. Philadelphia, 1874-77. 

2. Adams, Henry. Life of Albert Gallatin. Philadelphia, 
1879. 

3. . Writings of Albert Gallatin. 3 vols. Philadelphia, 

1879. 

4. . John Randolph. American Statesmen Series. Bos- 
ton, 1883. 

5. Calhoun, John Caldwell. Correspondence of John C. 
Calhoun, edited by J. F. Jameson. Printed in the Report of 
the American Historical Association for 1899. 2 vols. Wash- 
ington, 1901. 

6. Cutler, Julia P. Life and Times of Ephraim Cuder. Cin- 
cinnati, 1890. 

7. Curtis, William E. The True Thomas Jefiferson. Phila- 
delphia, 1901. 

8. Ford, Paul Leicester. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. 
10 vols. New York, 1892-99. 

9. Ford, WoRTHiNGTON C. The Writings of George Washington. 
14 vols. 

10. Garland, Hugh A. Life of John Randolph of Roanoke. 
2 vols. New York, 1 85 1. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 343 

11. Hambleton, James P. A Biographical Sketch of Henry A. 
Wise with a History of the Political Campaign of 1855. Rich- 
mond, 1856. 

12. Hamilton, Stanislaus Murray. Writings of James Monroe. 
7 vols. New York, 1898- 1903. 

13. Henry, William Wirt. Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence, 
and Speeches. 3 vols. New York, 189 1. 

14. Hunt, Gaillard. Life of James Madison. New York, 1902. 
15. . Writings of James Madison. 7 vols. New York, 

1 900- 1 908. 
- 16. Marshall, Thomas F. Speeches and Writings of T. F. 
Marshall, edited by W. L. Barre. Cincinnati, 1858. 

17. Randall, Henry Stephens. Life of Thomas Jefferson. 
3 vols. New York, 1858. 

18. Randolph, John. Letters to a Young Friend. Philadelphia, 

1834. 

19. Rives, William Cabell. History of the Life and Times 
of James Madison. 3 vols. Boston, 1866. 

20. . The Journal of Thomas Walker. 

21. Rowland, Kate Mason. The Life of George Mason, Includ- 
ing His Speeches, Public Papers, and Correspondence, with 
an Introduction by General Fitzhugh Lee. 2 vols. New York, 
1892. 

22. Seward, Frederick W. William H. Seward, an Autobiog- 
raphy. New York, 1891. 

23. Smith, Margaret Vowell. Virginia, 1492-1892. A Brief 
Review of the Discovery of the Continent of North America 
with a History of the Executives of the Colony and Common- 
wealth of Virginia. Washington, 1893. 

24. Sparks, Jared. The Writings of George Washington. 12 
vols. Boston, 1855. 

25. Spotswood, Alexander. Official Letters. Edited by R. A. 
Brock and Printed in the Virginia Historical Collections. New 
Series, Vols. I and II. Richmond, 1882-85. 

26. Tyler, Lyon G. Letters and Times of the Tylers. 3 vols. 
Richmond and Williamsburg, 1884-96. 

27. Tyler, Moses Coit. Patrick Henry. American Statesmen 
Series. Boston, 1887. 



344 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776^1861 

28. Wirt, William. Sketch of the Life and Character of Patrick 
Henr}'. Ninth edition. Philadelphia, 1838. 

29. Wise, Barton Haxall. Life of Henry A. Wise of Virginia. 
New York, 1899. 

30. Wise, Henry Alexander. Seven Decades of the Union. 
Richmond, 188 1. 

V. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 

a. of the united states 

1. Annals of Congress, 1789-1824. 42 vols. 1834-56. 

2. Census Reports of the United States, 1800-1890. 

3. Commissioner of Education. Biennial Reports, 1893-1901. 

4. The Congressional Globe, containing the debates and proceed- 
ings of Congress, 1834-73. 108 vols. 

5. Elliot, Jonathan. Debates in the Several State Conventions 
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. 4 vols. Washing- 
ton, 1845. 

6. Journals of Congress. Secret Journals of the Continental 
Congress and Journals, 1 789-1860. 

7. PooRE, Benjamin Perley. Federal and State Constitutions, 
Colonial Charters and Other Original Laws. 2 vols. Wash- 
ington, 1872. 

8. Register of Debates of Congress, 1825-37. 39 vols. 

9. State Papers of the Federal Congress, 1 789-1860. 

10. Wheaton, Reports of Decisions in the Supreme Court of the 
United States, 1817-28. 12 vols. Notes by R. B. Curtis. 
5th ed. Boston, 1870. 

B. OF VIRGINIA 

1. Board of Public Works. Annual and Biennial Reports. 
1816-60. 

2. Case Briefs in Church Law Suits. Sites v. Flecker and Flecker 
v. Harrison. Pamphlets in the Department of Archives and 
History, Charleston, W. Va. 

3. Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 1 781-1869. 11 vols. Rich- 
mond, 1875. 

4. Debates and Proceedings on the Resolutions of 1798. Rich- 
mond, 1835. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 345 

5. Grattan, Peachy R. Report of Cases Decided in the Supreme 
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1844-60. 15 vols. Richmond. 

6. Documents of the House and Senate of the General Assembly 
from 1 789-1860. 

7. James River and Kanawha Company. Annual Reports, 
1835-60. 

8. Journals of the House of Delegates, 1776-1861. 

9. Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-76. Edited by 
John Pendleton Kennedy. 4. vols. Richmond, 1905-7. 

10. Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1850-51. 

11. Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia Constitutional Con- 
vention of 1829-30. Richmond, 1830. 

12. MuMFORD, William. Report of Cases Decided in the Supreme 
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1810-21. 6 vols. New York 
and Richmond. 

C. OF WEST VIRGINIA 

I. Hagan, John Marshall. Report of Cases in the Supreme 
Court of Appeals. 3 vols. Reprinted, Wheeling, 1899-1900. 

VI. LAWS OF VIRGINIA 

1. Acts of the General Assembly, 1776-1860. 

2. Hening, William Waller. Statutes at Large, Being a Col- 
lection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the 
Legislature to 1792. 13 vols. 

3. Revised Code of 18 19. 2 vols. 

4. Code of 1849. 2 vols. Richmond, 1849. 

5. Secepherd, Samuel. The Statutes at Large of Virginia from 
the October Session, 1792, to the December Session, 1806. 3 
vols. Richmond, 1835. 

VII. CHURCH HISTORIES, PAPERS, AND MONOGRAPHS 

ON CHURCH HISTORY 

I. Be ale, G. W. Revised edition of Semple's Histor\' of the 

Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia. Richmond, 1894. 

a. Debates in the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 

Church, 1844. 
3. Journals of the General Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, 1832-60. 



346 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

4. Matlack, Lucius C. The Anti-Slavery Struggle and the 
Triumph of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, 
1881. 

5. Meade, William. Old Churches, Ministers, and Families 
of Virginia. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 189 1. 

6. Semple, Robert B. History of the Rise and Progress of the 
Baptists in Virginia, Richmond, 18 10. 

VIII. MANUSCRIPTS 

1. Biggs Papers, in the Draper Manuscripts. Historical Library, 
Madison, Wis. 

2. Land Books of Kanawha County. In the office of the County 
Clerk of Kanawha County, Charleston, W. Va. 

3. File of papei-s in the Parkersburg Church case, T. A. Cook v. 
L. P. Neal. In the office of the Circuit Clerk of Wood 
County, Parkersburg, W. Va. 

4. Pay-Rolls of the Members of the General Assembly of Virginia 
before 1828. In the State Library at Richmond. 

IX. MISCELLANEOUS 

1. Bancroft, George. History of the United States. 10 vols. 
Boston, 1857-74. 

2. Elliott, W. M., and W. A. R. Nye. Virginia Directory and 
Business Register for 1852. Richmond, 1852. 

3. Hudson, Frederick. History of Journalism in the United 
States, 1690-1871. New York, 1873. 

4. Maclay, William. Journal of William Maclay, United 
States Senator from Pennsylvania. Edited by E. S. Maclay. 
New York, 1890. 

5. Martin, Joseph. A New and Comprehensive Gazetteer of 
Virginia and the District of Columbia. Charlottesville, Va., 

1835- 

6. Marietta College Catalogues, 1831-60. 

7. Report of the Committee on Roads and Internal Improvements 
Made to the General Assembly of 1831-32. 

8. Tribune Almanac and Political Register, 1856-61. New 
York. Published annually. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 347 

9. Whig Almanacs and the United States Register, 1843-55. New 
York. Published annually. 

X. NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, AND PERIODICALS 

A. FILES IN THE STATE HISTORICAL LIBRARY AT RICHMOND, VA. 

1. Branch Papers. Vols. I and III. Publication of Randolph- 
Macon College. 

2. Richmond Compiler, 1832-34. 

3. Richmond Enquirer, 1804-60. 

The file in the Virginia library is not complete, but it may be made 
practically complete when supplemented by the files in the Historical 
Library at Madison, Wis., and those in the Department of Archives and 
History, Charleston, W. Va, 

4. Richmond Examiner, 1858-59. 

5. Richmond South, a few numbers for 1858. 

6. Richmond Times, 1850-60. 

7. Richmond Whig, practically complete files 1830-60. 

8. Virginia Historical Magazine, Vols. I-XIII. 

9. The Virginia Magazine of History and Bibliography. Vols. 
I-XIV. 

10. William and Mary College Quarterly, Vols. I-XVII. 

B. FILES IN THE OFFICE OF THE "RICHMOND CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE" 

I. The Richmond Christian Advocate, 1850-60. 

C. FILES IN THE STATE HISTORICAL LIBRARY, MADISON, WIS. 

1. Alexandria Daily Gazette, July to December, 18 10. 

2. Alexandria Herald, June, 1811, to June, 1812; June, 1815, to 
May, 1819; June, 182 1, to May, 1824; June, 1825, to May, 1826. 

3. American Quarterly Review, for 1831 and 1832. 

4. Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, January to 
June, 1806; June to December, 18 10; January to Februar}', 
181 1 ; January to June, 18 14. 

5. Hunt, Freeman. The Merchant's Magazine, 1839-60. 42 
vols. Published at New York. 

6. DeBow, J. P. B. Review and Industrial Resources, Statistics, 
etc., 1846-61. 31 vols. Published at New Orleans. 



348 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 

7. Federal Intelligencer and Baltimore Daily Gazette, November 
to December, 1794; July to December, 1795. 

8 Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser, 1796; Janu- 
ary to June, 1797; August to December, 1799; 1801; January 
to June, 1803; January to June, 1804; November to December, 
1808. 

9. Loudoun's Register, 1793; January to June, October to Decem- 
ber, 1794. 

10. National Intelligencer. Practically complete files, including 
daily, tri-weekly, and weekly, 1802-61. 

11. National Republican and Ohio Political Register, 1823 and 
1824; 1825-30. Published at Cincinnati. 

12. Niles Weekly Register, September, 181 1, to June, 1849. 75 
vols. Published at Baltimore. 

13. The Palladium. August, 1798, to June, 1801. Frankfort, Ky. 

14. The Southern Literary Messenger, 1834-60. 50 vols. 

15. The Virginia Northwestern Gazette, April, 1818, to October, 
1820. Published at Wheeling, W. Va. 

16. Virginia Gazette, 1775; January to September, 1775. Pub- 
lished at Williamsburg, Va. 

17. Virginia Argus, November, 1804, to December, 1807; Janu- 
uary, 1808, to October, 181 1. 

18. Washington and Lee Historical Papers, Nos. I-V inclusive. 

19. Western Spy, July, 1814, to December, 1822. Pubhshed at 
Cincinnati, Ohio. 

D. FILES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY, 

CHARLESTON, W. VA. 

1. Kanawha Banner, 1830-33. Published at Charleston, W. Va. 

2. Kanawha Valley Star, 1855-61. Published at Charleston, 
W. Va. 

3. Kanawha Republican, 1841-44. Published at Charleston, 
W. Va. 

This was possibly the best newspaper published in trans-AlIeghany 
Virginia prior to the Civil War. It continued to be published until 
the Civil War. 

4. Star of the Kanawha Valley, 1850-55. Published at Buffalo, 
Va. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 349 

5. Wheeling Intelligencer, 1851-61. 

After 1856 this was a Republican newspaper. 

E. FILES IN THE OFFICE OF THE "PARKERSBURG GAZETTE," 

PARKERSBURG, W. VA. 

1. Parkersburg News, 1850-54. 

2. Parkersburg Gazette, 1856-61. 

F. FILES IN THE OFFICE OF THE ''PITTSBURG CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE" 

I. The Pittsburg Christian Advocate, 1852-61. 

G. FILES IN PRIVATE COLLECTIONS 

1. Guyandotte Chronicle, 1856. Published at Guyandotte, W. Va. 

2. Harrisonburg Republican. 

3. Wellsburg Herald, 1858-61. 

This was a Republican newspaper published at Wellsburg, W. Va. 

4. Wheeling Gazette, 1822 and 1823. 



INDEX 



INDEX 



Abolitionists: unpopularity of, 
225; danger to the Union, 226; 
threatened by eastern prints, 
310. 

Adams, John, breach with Hamil- 
ton, 75. 

Adams, J. Q.: and Chesapeake 
and Ohio Canal, 126; in 
campaign of 1824, 127; interest 
in Virginia politics, 132-33. 

Agriculture: societies formed, 114; 
opposed abolition, 225. 

"Agricola," essays of, 211. 

American system: opposed in 
eastern Virginia, 1 15-16; atti- 
tude of the west toward, 118; 
opposition of east increases, 
119-20; arguments against 
tariff of 1824, 120; denounced 
by the General Assembly, 121; 
interest of western salt-makers 
in, 121-22; tariff of 1828, 122; 
influence of Virginia statesmen, 
150; effect on internal improve- 
ments, 1829-33, 175; devotion 
of west to, 202; surrender by 
Clay, 219. 

Andrew, Bishop James O., a 
slave-owner, 286. 

Anti-Federalists: arguments of, 
56-57; control Assembly of 
1789-90, 59; loss of political 
control, 60. 

Archer, W. S.: arguments on 
internal improvements, 176; or- 
thodox Whig, 230. 

Assumption of state debts, opposed 
by Virginia, 62. 

Augusta County, petition on aboli- 
tion, 189. 



Baltimore: market of the Valley, 
16; commercial rival of Rich- 
mond, 175. 

Baltimore and Ohio R.R. Co. 
See Railroads. 

Banks: U.S. Bank favored in 
eastern Virginia, 220; subject 
of sectional strife, 237-40; in- 
dependent banks incorporated, 
300. 

Bank of United States, desired by 
Federalists, 91. 

Barbour, James, U.S. senator and 
friend of Adams, 127. 

Barbour, J. S., position on Nulli- 
fication, 210. 

Barbour, P. P.: member of Con- 
gress, 1 01; member of conven- 
tion of 1829-30, 145; on repro- 
sentation in convention, 160; 
speech on internal improve- 
ments, 176; candidate for vice- 
presidency, 206; Democratic 
leader, 222. 

Battelle, Rev. Gordon, position of, 
on negro slavery, 294. 

Bell, John, candidate for presi- 
dency, 330. 

Bill of Rights: work of Mason, 28; 
opposed by conservatives, 29; 
attempt to amend, 148; text of 
reformers, 149; little considered 
in 1850, 268; popular in western 
Virginia, 255. 

Blackstone: effect of, upon young 
men, 20; on rights of aliens, 71. 

Board of Public Works: incorpo- 
rated, 105; members made elect- 
ive by popular vote, 266. 

Bonus bill, favored by Federalists, 
98-99. 



353 



354 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 



Border states: church contro- 
versies in, 283; attitude toward 
negro slavery, 285. 

Botts, John Minor, member of 
convention of 1850-51, 263. 

Braxton, Carter, opposed to Bill 
of Rights, 29. 

Breckenridge, John C: candidate 
for presidency, 330; position of 
party in Virginia, 332. 

Brockenbrough, John W., candi- 
date for governor in 1859, 319. 

Brodnax, W. H., on evil effects of 

slavery, 194. 
Brooks, Elisha, salt manufacturer, 

84. 
Brown, John, effect of Raid on 

Virginia politics, 329. 

Buffalo and New Orleans Turn- 
pike: arguments pro and con, 
175-77; bill for, defeated, 177. 

Calhoun, J. C: author of Bonus 
bill, 98; unpopular in Virginia in 
1824,128; influence on Virginia 
leaders, 1 50-5 1 ; letter on forma- 
tion of Whig party, 221; influ- 
ence on Virginians, 225-29; 
favored for presidency in 1844, 
233; reconciled to Ritchie, 235; 
opposition to war with Mexico, 
236; triumph in Virginia poli- 
tics, 236; displaced Jefferson 
in east, 270. 

Campbell, Alexander: speech on 
Bill of Rights, 148-49; on 
theories of government, 154-55; 
efforts in behalf of free schools, 

273- 
Cass, Lewis, popular in western 

Virginia, 237. 
Caucus, congressional, nominated 

Crawford in 1824, 131. 
Charles City County, abolition 

petition, 190. 
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Co. 

See Internal improvements. 



Christian Advocate and Journal of 
Baltimore, indicted, 289. 

Churches, and negro slavery, 
282-86. 

Clarksburg: reform convention 
of 1842, 254-55; educational 
convention of 1841, 276. 

Clay, Henry: remarks on aboli- 
tion of entail, T,y, presidential 
candidate in 1824, 128; candi- 
date for presidency, 1832, 205; 
popularity in west, 219; visits 
in western Virginia, 220; letter 
on formation of Whig party, 
221; choice of vc^st for presi- 
dent, 227. 

Clemens, Sherrard: in duel with O. 
Jennings Wise, 321; popularity 
in western Virginia, 322. 

Collins, Rev. J. A.: opposition to 
negro slavery, 284-85; changed 
attitude toward slavery, 294. 

Commerce, British restrictions of, 
48-49; interest of the Tidewater 
in, 48-49; activity in, 82. 

Commercial conventions: interest 
in education, 279; forerunners 
of Confederacy, 308; unpopular 
in western Virginia, 309. 

"Committee of Revision of 1776," 
personnel and work of, 34. 

Compromise of 1850: reception 
in Virginia, 300; repudiated, 
302. 

Constitution of 1776, provisions of, 
29-30. 

Constitution of 1830: provisions 
of, 168; ratification of, 171-72; 
opposition to, in trans-Alle- 
ghany, 172-74; provisions for 
future representation, 253. 

Constitution of 1851: provisions 
of, 264-68; opposed by east, 
270; church property, 292. 

Constitutional convention (Vir- 
ginia), 1776: personnel, 25; 
work of, 26-27. 



INDEX 



355 



Convention, constitutional, 1829- 
30: movement leading to, 137- 
43; popular vote on, 144; diffi- 
culty over basis of representa- 
tion in, 144-45; personnel of, 
145; national importance of, 
146; met in Richmond, 147; 
classification of delegates, 149- 
51; compromise plans proposed, 
163-66; sine die adjournment 
proposed, 164. 

Convention, constitutional, 1850- 
51: bill passed, 260; first meet- 
ing, 261; debates of, 268-70; 
education discussed, 278. 

Convention, federal, of 1787: 
originated in Virginia, 45-51; 
delegates to, 52; the "Virginia 
Plan," 52. 

Convention of 1788: personnel, 
53; sectional interests repre- 
sented, 53; debates, 54-57; dele- 
gates from trans- Alleghany, 57- 
58. 

Constitution, federal: interest of 
commerce in, 48-52; based on 
the "Virginia Plan," 52; in- 
terests and sections for and 
against, 53; ratification of, 58. 

Cotton, attempts to grow, in 
Virginia, 1 14-15. 

Cotton gin, effects of invention of, 
no. 

County courts, members of, ap- 
pointed, 139. 

Courts: conflict between state and 
federal, 103; Supreme Court of 
Virginia, decision in church 
cases, 290. 

Cralle: editor of Petersburg Jeffer- 
sonian, a Nullification paper, 
210; visits of, to western Vir- 
ginia in 1850, 249. 

Crawford, W. H., candidate for 
presidency, 127. 

Cumberland Road: bill to estab- 
lish, opposed in Virginia, 85; 
thoroughfare for immigrants, 



1 1 7-18; vote on bill of 1822, 
122. 

Davies Samuel, pioneer teacher, 
16. 

Dawson, John: Republican leader 
in the trans-Alleghany, 71; 
vote on Cumberland Road bill, 
85. 

Declaration of Independence: in- 
terior for, 26-27; conservatives 
oppose, 27. 

Democratic party: in 1834, 219; 
control of Assembly of 1835 by, 
223; candidates in election of 
1836, 228; breach following 
election of 1836, 228; in control 
of Assembly in 1841, 232; bank 
legislation, 238; internal im- 
provement legislation, 240; 
strongholds, 257; convention of 
1852, 302; successes of, in 1852, 
303; conservatives and radicals, 
306; successes in 1857, 3^8; 
campaigns of 1859-60, 319 ff. 

Democratic Republican party: 
founded, 63; in campaign of 
1798-99, 77; in control of 
Virginia Assembly, 80. 

Dew, Thomas R., essay on negro 
slavery, 201. 

Disestablishment. See Religious 
liberty. 

Dismemberment of Union: de- 
nounced in western Virginia, 
309; regarded as inevitable, 315. 

Dismemberment of Virginia: pro- 
posed in 1796 and 1816, 94; 
talked of in convention of 1829- 
30, 166; movement for, in western 
Virginia, 167; talk of, in 
1829-33, 177; slavery a cause 
of, 198; discussed by John 
Tyler, 205; threatened in 1842, 
255; and Methodist Episcopal 
church, 298-99; cause of, 338. 

Dissenters: protests against cor- 
ruption in church by, 17; per- 



356 



SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 



secuted, 21 ; for religious liberty, 
32; Hanover Presbytery, 32; 
opposed to the general assess- 
ment bill, 40. 

Doddridge, Philip: member of 
convention of 1829-30, 145; 
for white basis, 147; contem- 
plated leaving convention of 
1829-30, 164. 

Domestic slave trade: effects of, 
in 1830, 187; extent of, 194. 

Douglas, Stephen A.: candidate 
for presidency, 330; position of 
party in Virginia, 331. 

Duncan, Judge E. S., remarks 
upon university, 276. 

Eaton, Major, president of Chesa- 
peake and Ohio Canal Co., 184. 

Education: influence of Princeton 
and Yale on, 16; founding of 
Washington and Lee and Hamp- 
den-Sidney, 16; "Aldermanic 
System," 273; free common 
schools, 274; conventions, 276; 
legislation of 1846, 278. 

Elections, congressional: of 181 7, 
loi; of 1829 and 1831, 204; of 
1833, 218. 

Elections, presidential: of 1800- 
1801, 78-80; of 1808, 88-90; of 
1824-28, 127-36; map showing 
vote of 1824 in, 132; vote in elec- 
tion of 1828, 135; election of 
1832, 205; of 1836, 227; of 
1840, 231; of 1844, 234; of 
1848, 237; of i860, 330. 

Embargo, opposed by "Quids" 
and Federalists, 87-88. 

Enquirer, Richmond: favored 
Crawford's candidacy in 1824, 
129; opposed Calhoun, 233; on 
preservation of the Union, 246, 
249; on development of trans- 
AUeghany, 252. 

Entail and primogeniture, abol- 
ished, 33. 

Episcopal church: influence of, 



in the Tidewater, 9; decline of, 
1 7; opposed disestablishment, 32. 
Era of good feeling, eff'ect on 
Virginia, 100. 

Faulkner, C. J.: distrusted in 
eastern Virginia, 198; opposed 
abolition, 226; minister to 
France, 317. 

Fauquier, Governor, influence of, 

17- 

Federalists: on the ratification of 
the federal Constitution, 54-57; 
Hamiltonian Federalists, 63; 
strength in the northwest of, 
64; losses of, in the trans- 
Alleghany, 65; in_ 1798-99, 75- 
76; successes by, in elections of 
1799, 77; opposed Jefferson, 80; 
opposed Louisiana Purchase, 
81; opposition of, to commer- 
cial restrictions, 86-88, con- 
gressional election of 1809, 90; 
congressional election of 1811, 
91-92; opposed to second war 
with Great Britain, 92; a strong 
party in 181 3, 93; death of the 
party, 96-97. 

Flournoy, Thos. S., Whig candi- 
date for governor, 305. 

Floyd, John: member of Con- 
gress, loi; an expansionist, 
116; governor of Virginia and 
remarks on Turner insurrec- 
tion, 188; message to Assembly 
regarding Nullification, 215. 

Force bill, effect of, on eastern 
Virginia, 214-15. 

France: war with, 65-68; peace 
with, 75; W. B. Preston agent 
to, 316; Franco- Virginia steam- 
ship line, 317. 

Free negroes, attempt to remove 
from the state, 200. 

French Revolution, influence of, 
upon Virginia, 153-54- 

Fugitive slaves, feeling in western 
Virginia on escape of, 109. 



INDEX 



357 



Gallatin, Albert: influence of, 
in the trans-Alleghany, 65; Re- 
port of 1807, 85. 

General assessment bill : proposed, 
39; theme of general discussion, 
40-41; opposed by Madison, 40. 

General survey bill of 1824, 
opposed by east, 124. 

Genet, attack by, upon Washing- 
ton, 64. 

Germans: settlement of, in the 
Valley, 13; in the trans- 
Alleghany, 252; adhere to Demo- 
cratic party, 293, 304. 

Giles, W. B.: opposed the war 
with France, 65-66; member 
of convention of 1829-30, 145; 
on theories of government, 152; 
basis of representation, 153; 
remarks of, on dismember- 
ment, 166. 

Gilmer, T. W.: strict construc- 
tionist, 206; orthodox Whig, 
230. 

Goggin, Wm. L., candidate for 
governor, 323-24. 

Goode, W. O.: opposed to aboli-* 
tion, 190; speech of, against 
abolition, 194; member of con- 
vention of 1850-51, 267. 

Gordon, Wm. F.: on guarantee 
for protection of slave property, 
159; plan of compromise in 
convention of 1829-30, 163; on 
Nullification, 210; a Demo- 
crat, 229. 

Governor's Council, unsatisfac- 
tory, 139. 

Graham, Archibald, letter of, on 
Nullification, 214. 

Grayson, William, an anti-Federal- 
ist, 56, 57. 

Grigsby, H. B.: on constitutional 
convention of 1776, 25; person- 
nel of convention of 1788, 57; 
member of convention of 1829- 
3o> 165. 



Hamilton, Alexander: secretary 
of Treasury, 61; plans opposed 
by Jefferson and Madison, 62- 
63; war with France, 66. 

Harrisburg Convention, of 1827, 

Virginians in, 121. 
Harding, Rev. John A., suspended 

by Baltimore Conference, 284. 

Harrison, Jesse Burton, essay of, 
on negro slavery, 201. 

Harrison, W. H., choice of west 
for presidency, 227. 

Harrisonburg Republican, on se- 
cession, 247. 

Henry, Patrick: leader of the west, 
17; member of House of Bur- 
gesses, 18-19; for independence, 
26; in the convention of 1776, 
27; Bill of Rights, 28; alienated 
from Jefferson, 34; member of 
Anglican church, 39; again 
leader of the west, 50, 54; an 
anti-Federalist, 56; a Federalist, 

75- 
Hunter, R. M. T.: influenced by 
Calhoun, 151, 225; became 
member of Democratic party, 
229; favored Calhoun for presi- 
dency, 233; elected to U.S. 
Senate, 235-36; internal im- 
provement policy, 243; re- 
elected to U.S. Senate, 300; as 
a conservative, 306; favored 
Letcher for governor, 320; can- 
didate for presidency, 326. 

Impending Crisis (Helper's), popu- 
lar in western Virginia, 186. 

Internal improvements: interest of 
the interior in, 22; means of 
connecting east and west, 46-48; 
Potomac and James River Canal 
companies incorporated, 48; in- 
terest following second war with 
Great Britain, 93-94; national- 
istic tendencies of the west, 97; 
Virginia Asesmbly on, 98;^ by 
federal government, 105; rights 



358 



SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 



of James River Company pur- 
chased by state, 106; surveys on 
upper Potomac, 107; interest in, 
along the Potomac, 122; incor- 
poration of Chesapeake and 
Ohio Canal Company, 123; 
sectional jealousies, 123-24; in- 
terest in railroad building, 124- 
25; opposition in the east to 
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and 
to Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, 
125-26; surveys in the w^est, 
126-27; influence on election of 
1828, 132; activity in western 
Virginia, 175 ff.; railroad vs. 
canal, 179; James River and 
Kanawha Company incorpo- 
rated, 182; Jackson and Chesa- 
peake and Ohio Canal, 184; 
internal improvement legislation, 
1833-50, 240-43; legislation 
following 1850, 300; legislation 
in Wise's administration, 311; 
sectional jealousies, 313; Kana- 
wha Board incorporated, 315; 
appropriations in 1857-58, 315; 
appropriations in 1859-60, 317; 
Virginia Canal Company incor- 
porated, 318; condition in west- 
ern Virginia in i860, 319. See 
also Railroads. 
Irish: settlement of, in Valley, 13; 
adhere to Democratic party, 
293. 304- 

Jackson, Andrew: presidential 
candidate, 128-30; internal im- 
provement policy, 1829-33, 1755 
veto of Maysville Turnpike bill, 
177; popularity of, in western 
Virginia, 178; hostility of, to 
C. F. Mercer, 184; re-elected 
president, 205; proclamation of, 
209. 

Jackson, George: a Federalist in 
1788, 58; elected to Congress, 
65. 

Jackson, J. G.: Republican leader 
in the trans-Alleghany, 71; vote 
of, on Cumberland Road bill, 85. 



James River Company. See In- 
ternal improvements. 

James River and Kanawha Com- 
pany. See Internal improve- 
ments. 

Jay treaty, opposition to, 63. 

Jeff'erson, Thomas: in 1765, 20; 
leader of reform movement, 30- 
T,y, governor of Virginia, 35; 
author of Notes on Virginia, 36; 
influenced land legislation, 43; 
opposition of, to Hamilton, 62; 
Virginia and Kentucky Reso- 
lutions, 67; remarks of, on elec- 
tion of 1799, 77-78; elected 
president, 79; breach with 
Randolph, 86; letter of, to 
Samuel Kercheval, 95; on Mis- 
souri Compromise, 108; mort- 
gaged Monticello, 112; on tarifl' 
of 1824, 120; favored constitu- 
tional convention, 142; aboli- 
tion doctrines of, 185; post nati 
plan to abolish slavery, 191; 
displaced by Calhoun, 270; 
repudiated by east, 309. 

Johnson, Chapman: oration of, on 
purchase of Louisiana, 81; 
member of convention of 1829- 

30» 145- 
Johnson, Joseph: favored Survey 
Act, 134; governor of Virginia, 
262; commuted sentence of 
Jordon Hatcher, 271; re-elected 
governor, 300; message of, in 
1855, 301. 

Johnson, R. M.: unpopular in 
Virginia, 228; opposed for vice- 
president in 1840, 231. 

Kanawha Banner: on internal 
improvements, 181; salt in- 
dustry, 204. 

Kanawha Republican: opposed 
secession, 247; favored dismem- 
berment, 255. 

Kanawha Valley (Great): interest 
of, in internal improvements 



INDEX 



359 



178; dissatisfaction in, 302; 
interest of, in river navigation, 
314- 
Know-Nothings: attacked Metho- 
dists, 293; factor in politics, 303. 

Land companies and grants: In- 
diana and Vandalia companies, 
43; Virginia's liberality to, 44; 
retarded development of west, 45 ; 
opposed to federal Constitution, 
56; opposed Marshall's deci- 
sions, 103. 

Land Office, established in 1779, 

44- 
Leake, Shelton F., candidate for 

governor, 306. 

Lee, Richard Henry, friend to 
Anglican church, 39. 

Leesburg Washingtonian, on seces- 
sion, 247. 

Leigh, Benjamin Watkins: re- 
marks of, on taxation, 141; 
member of convention of 1829- 
30, 145; for mixed basis, 147; 
political theories, 151-52; con- 
demned federal system of taxa- 
tion, 155; compared general 
suffrage with plagues, 162; sub- 
mitted compromise in conven- 
tion of 1829-30, 163; remarks 
of, on dismemberment of Vir- 
ginia, 166; elected to United 
States Senate, 221; re-elected, 
222; resigned, 224; orthodox 
Whig, 230. 

Letcher, John: indorsed Ruffner 
pamphlet, 244; candidate for 
governor, 320; elected, 323, 

Lewis, Joseph, Federalist member 
of Congress, 80. 

Lewisburg: convention of 1844, 
241; convention of 1842, 256. 

Lincoln, Abraham, candidate for 
presidency, 330, 

Literary Fund, use of income, 273; 
appropriation to free schools, 
274. 



Loudoun County, and abolition, 
189. 

Loria, opinion of, on slavery, 186. 

Louisiana, purchase of, 81; effect 
on Virginia politics, 81-82. 

Loyalists, location and members, 
25- 

Lynchburg Virginian: on seces- 
sion, 211; opposed Calhoun, 
226; remarks on Compromise 
of 1850, 302. 

Madison, James: leader of reforms, 
38; and commerce, 49-50; a 
Federalist, 58; opposition of, to 
Hamilton, 62; Virginia and 
Kentucky Resolutions, 67; Re- 
port of 1799, 72, 78; hated by 
Randolph, 86; elected president, 
89; financial embarrassments of, 
112; president of agricultural 
society, 114; on the effect of 
immigrations, 116; on tariff of 
1824, 121; on negro slavery, 
142; member of convention of 
1829-30, 145; on white and 
mixed basis, 147; conservative 
attitude of, in convention of 
1829-30, 165; abolition doc- 
trines of, 185; reply of, to Dew, 
202. 

Madisonian: newspaper founded, 
229; organ of third party, 231. 

Marion County, Boothsville Reso- 
lutions, 296. 

Marshall, John: opposed dis- 
establishment, 39; for ratifica- 
tion of federal Constitution, 55; 
leader of Federalist party, 75; 
commissioner to view western 
rivers, 98; member of conven- 
tion of 1829-30, 145; sub- 
mitted compromise in conven- 
tion of 1829-30, 163; conserva- 
tive attitude of, in convention of 
1829-30, 165. 

Marshall, Thomas: on industrial 
decline of the east, 11 1; on 



360 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 



negro slavery, 193, iq6; resolu- 
tion of, on Nullification, 216. 

Martin v. Hunter, Lessee, case of, 
in state and federal Supreme 
courts, 102-3. 

Maryland: interest of, in com- 
merce, 50; delegates of, in the 
Annaf)olis Convention, 51. 

Mason, Armistead T. : defeated 
for election to Congress, loi; 
duel of, with J. M. McCarthy, 

lOI. 

Mason County, denounced seces- 
sion, 248. 

Mason, George: interested in 
western lands, 21; leader in 
convention of 1776, 27; author 
of Bill of Rights, 28; retired to 
private life, 30; opposed import 
duties, 42; an anti-Federalist, 
56. 

Mason, J. M.: elected to U.S. 
Senate, 236; re-elected, 300. 

Mason, John Y., influenced by 
Calhoun, 151, 225. 

Maysville, Turnpike bill for, con- 
sidered, defeated, 177. 

McCullough V. Maryland, decision 
in, unpopular, 104. 

McGuffie, George, on Nullifica- 
tion, 210. 

McDowell, James: on slavery, 
debate of 1831-32, 186; private 
property in unborn slaves, 195; 
speech of, on abolition, 197; 
activity of, in election of 1832, 
207; member of Union party, 
209; remarks of, on re-election 
of Leigh to United States Senate, 
223; opposed to abolition, 226; 
suggested as governor of western 
Virginia, 255-56; governor of 
Virginia, 257. 

Mercer, C. F.: for internal im- 
provements by federal govern- 
ment, 100; on industrial decline 
of the east, 11 1; speech of, on 
behalf of Survey Act, 133; 



member of convention of 1829- 
30, 145; friend of internal im- 
provements, 177; defeated for 
presidency of the Chesapeake 
and Ohio Canal Co., 184; polit- 
ical tour of western Virginia, 
220. 
Methodist Episcopal church: dis- 
sentions of, over slavery, 282-86; 
action of general conference of, 
on negro slavery, 284; fight 
of, for property and mem- 
bers in Border, 287-89; law- 
suits of, 289-90; western Vir- 
ginia, annual conference or- 
ganized, 290; abolitionist agita- 
tion, 293; periodicals of, favor 
abolitionists, 294-95 ; negro 
slavery and Discipline, 297. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South: organization of, 286; 
fight of, for property and mem- 
bers in Border, 287-89; western 
Virginia annual conference or- 
ganized, 291; denounces aboli- 
tionists, 295-97. 

Mississippi River: free navigation 
of, 49; report of Jay-Gardoqui 
negotiations, 51. 

Missouri Compromise, popular in 
Virginia, 107-8. 

Monroe, James: and commerce, 
49; governor of Virginia, 80; 
minister to England, 86; candi- 
date for presidency in 1808, 89; 
financial embarrassments of, 
112; veto of, of internal im- 
provement bill of 1822, 122; 
"Views on the Subject of Internal 
Improvements," 124; on negro 
slavery, 141; member of con- 
vention of 1829-30, 145. 

Moore, Samuel McDowell: speech 
of, on abolition, 197; on Nulli- 
fication, 213; indorsed Ruffner 
pamphlet, 244. 

Morgan, General Daniel, letter 
of, to General Benjamin Biggs, 
73- 



INDEX 



361 



Nashville Convention: delegates 
sent to it, 245; opposition to, 
249. 

National Republicans, in congres- 
sional elections of 1829 and 1831, 
204. 

Negro slavery: caused growth of 
plantations, 7; in the Piedmont, 
8; failure in the Valley, 14-15; 
Methodists and Quakers op- 
posed to, 41; introduced into 
trans-AUeghany, 45-46; atti- 
tude of west toward, in 1820, 
108-9; retarded reforms, 140- 
41; in western Virginia, 156; a 
sectional issue, 185; increased 
interest of east in, 187; abolition 
movement of 1831, 189; moral 
issues in debate of 1831-32, 196; 
sectional feeling displayed in 
debates of 1831-32, 198; in 
District of Columbia, 224; a 
sectional issue, 244-50; factor 
in politics, 323. 

New Englanders, for free schools, 
274. 

Newton, E. W.: editor of Kana- 
wha Republican, 282; friend of 
common free schools, 282. 

Newton, Thomas, for tarifif of 
1820, 119. 

New York, commercial rival of 
Richmond, 175, 312. 

Nicholas, George, favored religious 
liberty, 39. 

Niles, Hezekiah: remarks of, on 
convention of 1829-30, 146; on 
internal improvements, 181; the 
American System, 202. 

Norfolk: a commercial center, 181; 
control of local elections, 258; 
rival commercial center, 312. 

Norfolk Herald, remarks of, on 
internal improvements, 243. 

Northern Neck: location of, 11; 
inhabitants of, 12; conservatism 
of, 12-13; ^rid the federal Con- 
stitution, 55; fears of secession 



of, from Virginia, 56; opposed 
Marshall's decisions, 103. 

Notes on Virginia, \\Titten by Jef- 
ferson, 36. 

Nullification: and bills for internal 
improvements, 177; effects of 
ordinance on, 209; position of 
eastern Virginia toward, 209-10; 
resolutions denouncing, 211-13; 
letters regarding, 213-14; and 
Resolutions of 1798, 216. 

Page, John, defeated by Jefferson 
for governorship, 35. 

Parker, Judge R. E., elected to 
United States Senate, 224. 

Pennybacker, Isaac, elected to 
United States Senate, 235, 257. 

Philadelphia, commercial rival of 
Richmond, 175, 312. 

Piedmont: location and natural 
features of, i ; for revolt against 
England, 24; opposed alien and 
sedition laws, 67; wheat indus- 
try of, 81-82; decline of popula- 
tion in, 113; slaves and popula- 
tion of, in 1828, 113; interest of, 
in railroads, 181; opposition of, 
to abolition, 189; vote of, on 
abolition, 199; Nullification 
sentiment of, 214. 

Plantation: beginnings of, 6-7; 
basis of society in east, 8; a self- 
sufficing institution, 11; in the 
Northern Neck, 12. 

Pleasants, James: for local re- 
forms, 142; member of State- 
Rights party, 209. 

Political parties, in colonial times, 
22-23. 

Polk, James K.: candidate for 

vice-presidency in 1840, 231; 

elected to presidency, 234. 
Potomac Company. See Internal 

improvements. 
Powell, Leven, Federalist leader, 

72. 



362 



SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 



Preston, VV. B.: on abolition of 
slavery, 192; distrusted by 
eastern Virginia, 198; amend- 
ment of, for abolition defeated, 
199; on formation of Whig 
party, 221; opposed abolition, 
226; agent of Virginia in 
France, 316. 

Pryor, Roger A.: influenced by 
Calhoun, 151; editor of Rich- 
mond South, 332. 

"Quids": opposition party, 86; 
personnel of, 87; congressional 
election of 1809, 90; successes 
of, in congressional election of 
1811,91; defeatof the party, 93. 

Railroads: Baltimore and Ohio 
Railroad Company incorpo- 
rated, 124; effect of, on internal 
improvement policy, 175; en- 
thusiasm for, in western Vir- 
ginia, 179; taken up by east, 
180; Staunton and Potomac 
Railroad Company incorpo- 
rated, 180; Baltimore and Ohio 
Railroad Company's fight for 
charter, 180; Lynchburg and 
New River Railroad Co. incor- 
porated, 181; Baltimore and 
Ohio Railroad Company's fight 
for a new charter, 241-42; 
Virginia and Tennessee Rail- 
road, 243; influence of, on 
southwest, 302; Covington and 
Ohio Railroad, 311; route of 
Covington and Ohio Railroad, 

313- 

Randolph, John: founder of 
"Quid" party, 86; defeated for 
re-election to Congress, 93; on 
industrial decline of eastern 
Virginia, 11 1; admirer of Ed- 
mund Burke, 154; on Nullifi- 
cation, 215. 

Randolph, Thomas J., for aboli- 
tion of slavery, 191. 

Randolph, Thomas M., vote of, on 
Cumberland Railroad bill, 85. 



Randolph, Peyton: conservative, 
20; friendly to federal Constitu- 
tion, 55. 

Reform movements: movement of 
1765, 20-21; reforms of 1776, 
30-34; reforms following peace 
of 1783, 38-42; movement of 
1816, 94; Jefferson and, 95; 
following 1825, 138-43; op- 
posed by the east, 143; following 
1830, 252-60. 

Religious liberty: Jefferson 
begins movement, 31-33; Madi- 
son's fight for, 39. 

Representation: constitution of 
1776, 30; increased, 33; for 
election of senators, 1816, 96; 
in 1828, 137; debate on proper 
basis in convention of 1829-30, 
149-62; provisions of constitu- 
tion of 1830, 169; dissatisfac- 
tion with, in west, 253-60; dis- 
cussion of, in convention of 1850- 
51, 261-65. 

Republican party: in Virginia in 
i860, 333; platform of, 334. 

Resolutions of 1798: WTitten by 
Jefferson and Madison, 67; con- 
tents of, 68; opposition to, in 
Virginia, 68-70; vote on, 71. 

Richmond: coal operators of, 86; 
interest of, in internal improve- 
ments, 104; commercial rivals 
of, 175; for tariff of 1842, 232; 
residents of, control county elec- 
tions, 258; commercial conven- 
tion of, 279; rival commercial 
center, 312. 

Richmond Enquirer: editorial on 
negro slavery, 190; on secession, 
211; desired a united Virginia, 
311; opposition of, to Letcher, 
321. 

Richmond "Junto," unpopular in 
west, 255. 

Ritchie, Thomas: reform move- 
ment of 1816, 96; opposed 
Jackson in 1824, 130; for local 



INDEX 



363 



reforms, 142; remarks of, on 
convention of 1829-30, 146; 
activity in election of 1832, 207; 
member of Union party, 209; 
influence of, in election of 1833, 
218; Democratic leader, 222-23; 
opposition of, to Calhoun, 233; 
editor of the Union, 235; rallies 
the west, 256; friendly to re- 
forms, 257; alarmed at free 
school movement, 277. 

Rives, W. C: opposed General 
Survey Act, 133; activity of, in 
election of 1832, 207; elected to 
United States Senate, 209; mem- 
ber of Union party, 209; mem- 
ber of Democratic party, 219; 
resigned place in United States 
Senate, 221; Democratic leader, 
222-23; re-elected to United 
States Senate, 224; opposed 
Van Buren's financial policy, 
229; contest of, for re-election to 
Senate, 230. 

Roane, Judge Spencer, opposed 
Marshall's decisions, 103. 

Robinson, John: speaker of the 
House of Burgesses, 17; scheme 
for a public loan office, 17-18. 

Royall, George, elected to House of 
Representatives as member of 
Union party, 218. 

Ruffin, Edmund: began use of 
marl, 114; pro-slavery tend- 
encies, 187; pro-slavery leader, 
308. 

Ruffner, Dr. Henry: author of the 
"Ruffner pamphlet," 244-45; 
interest of, in general education, 
277. 

Ruffner pamphlet: publication of, 
by Franklin Society, 244; factor 
in politics, 321. 

Rumsey, James, inventor, 48. 

Salt: beginning of manufacture of, 
in the trans- Alleghany, 83; duty 
on, 203; difficulties in shipping, 
314. 



San Domingo, slave uprisings in, 
64-71. 

Scotch Irish, settlement of, in the 
Valley, 13. 

Secession: popular in eastern 
Virginia in 1832, 209; feeling in 
western Virginia, 210; attitude 
of western Virginia in 1850, 247- 

50- 
Seddon, James A., influenced by 
Calhoun, 151. 

Sheffey, Daniel: Federalist leader, 
88; for United States Bank, 91; 
opposed to second war with 
Great Britain, 92. 

Slave trade: domestic, 112; oppo- 
sition to, 310. 

Smith, Dr. W. A., defended Rev. 
Harding, 284. 

Smith, Rev. Wesley, champion of 
Union, 292. 

South Carolina: course of, un- 
popular in Virginia, 211-12; 
acts of, praised, 215-16. 

Squatter sovereignty, in western 
Virginia, 43. 

Stamp Act Resolutions, passed, 19. 

Staunton Convention, of 181 6, 94- 

95- 
State rights: doctrine of, 68; issue 

of, in election of i860, 336. 

State-Rights party: formed, 209; 

in control of eastern Virginia, 

215. 
Stevenson, Andrew: on Missouri 

Compromise, 108; member of 

Union party, 218; Democratic 

leader, 222. 

Stratton, John, member of Con- 
gress, 80. 

Suffrage: constitution of 1776 on, 
29; voters in 1829, 137-38; 
abuses in exercise of, 137; de- 
bate in convention of 1829-30, 
161-62; provisions of constitu- 
tion of 1 85 1 concerning, 266. 



364 



SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 



Summers, Geo. W.: interest of, 
in internal improvements, 180; 
for abolition of slavery, 195; 
distrusted by eastern Virginia, 
198; opposed to abolition, 226; 
member of convention of 1850- 
51,263; candidate for governor, 

293- 

Summers, Lewis, member of con- 
vention of 1829-30, 145. 

"Swan Lands," purchased by 
French parties, 317. 

Tariff: bill of 1820, 118; bill of 
1824, 120; bill of 1828, 122; 
effort to remove duty on salt in, 
202; vote on bill of 1832, 204; 
bill of 1842, 232. 

Taxes, direct: and the federal 
Constitution, 59; provisions of 
constitution of 185 1 on, 267, 

Taylor, George Keith, opposed 
resolutions of 1798, 68-69. 

Taylor, John: talks dismember- 
ment, 70; for Resolutions of 
1798, 70; interest of, in agri- 
culture, 114; friendly to J. Q. 
Adams, 127. 

Taylor, Robert B.: speech of, on 
Bill of Rights, 148; forced to 
resign from convention of 1829- 
30» 165. 

Taylor, William, letter of, on Nulli- 
fication, 213. 

Tazewell, L. W.: member of con- 
vention of 1829-30, 145; as 
governor opposed removal of 
deposits, 221; a Democrat, 229. 

"Tenth Legion": a factor in 
Virginia politics, 224; in elec- 
tion of 1836, 228; factor in 
politics, 257. 

Tidewater: extent of, i; indus- 
trial, social, and political life of, 
6; social distinction of, 8-9; in 
the Revolution, 24; fear of slave 
uprising in, 64; in presidential 
election of 1808, 90; decline of, 



111-12; opposition of, to aboli- 
tion, 189; vote of, on abolition, 
199; Nullification sentiment in, 
214. 

Tobacco: effect upon plantation 
system, 7; migration of tobacco- 
growers to lower South, 11-12; 
effect of competition, of the 
new West, 113. 

Trans-AUeghany: location and 
description of, 2-3; new lands 
in, 21; development of, during 
Revolutionary period, 42-43; 
variety of elements in popula- 
tion of, 45; no political and 
economic unity in, 46; interest 
of, in internal improvements, 
47-48; opposed to Resolutions 
of 1798, 72-74; industrial de- 
velopment of, following 1795, 
82-83; growth of population in, 
84; lack of interest of, in 
internal improvements, 85; in- 
terest of, in federal improve- 
ments, 105-6; negro slavery in, 
108-9; industrial transforma- 
tion of, 1 16-17; German and 
New England settlements in, 
117; center of discontent after 
1830, 170-73; attitude of, on 
internal improvements, 177; 
vote of, on abolition of slavery, 
199; internal development of, 
after 1830, 251; church contro- 
versies in, 288. 

Tucker, Judge Beverly: speech 
in Nashville Convention, 246; 
Nashville speech criticized, 249. 

Turner's, "Nat," Insurrection, 
effect of, 188. f., 

Tyler, John, Jr.: member of ^Vi; 
gress, loi; member of coh<?^ . 
tion of 1829-30, 145; remani'^ '. 
on dismemberment of Virginia, 
205; re-elected to United States 
Senate, 217; resigned place in 
United States Senate, 224; can- 
didate for vice-presidency, 227; 
nominated for vice-presidency. 



INDEX 



365 



230; repudiated by Whigs, 231; 
opposed to dismemberment, 255. 

Union party: formed, 209; and 
Nullification, 216; of South 
Carolina, 219. 

University of Virginia: movement 
of, for a chair of agriculture, 
225; interest of, in Literary 
Fund, 274; unpopular in West- 
ern Virginia, 275; opposition 
to appropriation for, 278; in- 
tellectual center of South, 279; 
enrolment of 1857 at, 282. 

Upshur, Abel P. : member of con- 
vention of 1829-30, 145; on 
Bill of Rights, 151; on theories 
of government, 152; on exten- 
sion of slavery, 156; submitted 
compromise in convention of 
1829-30, 163. 

Valley of Virginia: location and 
subdivisions of, 1-2; settled by 
Scotch-Irish and Germans, 13; 
socially unlike the east, 14-15; 
community settlements of, 14; 
industrial life of, 14; theories of, 
regarding local government, 15; 
material grievances of, in 1774, 
21; for revolt from England, 24; 
opposition of, to Resolutions of 
1798, 72-74; wheat industry of, 
81-82; in presidential election 
of 1808, 90; interest of, in 
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 
125; negro slavery in, 156-57; 
vote of, on abolition of slavery, 
199. 

Van Buren, Martin: candidate for 

ice-presidency, 206; candidate 

'■■•r presidency, 228; carried 

•'irginia in 1840, 231; candidacy 

oi, in 1844, 234. 

Washington, George: interested in 
western lands, 21; opposed dis- 
establishment, 39; letter of, to 
Arthur Lee regarding West, 47; 



promoter of internal improve- 
ments, 48; influence of, on con- 
vention of 1788, 54; interested 
in politics of 1798, 75. 

Washington Globe, opposition of, 
to Calhoun, 233. 

Wheeling, western terminus of 
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 
241, 242. 

Whig party: formed, 221; candi- 
dates of, in election of 1836, 227; 
breach following election of 
1836, 228; successes of, in elec- 
tions of 1838, 229; opposed 
Tyler, 232; victory of, in 1844, 
234; successes of, in 1847, 236; 
Whigs and Calhoun, 237; bank- 
ing legislation, 238; internal 
improvement legislation, 240; 
opposed to reform, 257; favored 
an extension of suffrage, 259. 

Whiskey Insurrection, political in- 
fluence of, 64-65. 

White, Hugh L., candidate for 
presidency, 227, 

Whig, Richmond: pleas of, for 
unionof Whigs, 223; denounced 
secession in 1850, 249; opposi- 
tion of, to Letcher, 323, 326; 
Bell organ in i860, 7,33- 

Willey, W. T., taxation of slave 
property, 269. 

Wilmot Proviso, opposition to, in 
Virginia, 244. 

Winchester Republican, on rail- 
roads, 179. 

Wise, Henry A.: influenced by 
Calhoun, 151, 225; internal im- 
provement policy of, 243; mem- 
ber of convention of 1850-51, 
261; and the Methodists, 293; 
candidate for governor, 305; 
for united Virginia, 306-7; pop- 
ularity in western Virginia, 307; 
favored canal to the Ohio, 316; 
interested in Franco- Virginian 
steamship line, 318; candidate 
for presidency, 326; unpopu- 



366 



SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 



larity of, in western Virginia, 
328. 

Wise, O. Jennings, editor of Rich- 
mond Enquirer, 320. 

Woolens Bill, debate on, 122. 

Wright, Benjamin, engineer, 182. 

Wythe, George, proposed amend- 
ment by, to federal Constitution, 
59- 



"Yankees": teachers, 270; 

teachers opposed in eastern 
Virginia, 281; influence of, in 
western Virginia, 281. 

Yoder, Jacob, commercial ven- 
tures of, 47. 

Zane, Ebenezar, settlement of, on 
Wheeling island, 45; Federalist, 

58- 



BD 



l.B 






1^ " A^^ '^ " 






>^% \V|p;' 



-■p^^ 

















- K_. 















^ o X -* / 



A V C « 



N C 



^ 



^0^^. 









* ^^ 



N C 







*• .V. * 



-v^' -^z. 



■^C 



\. 



f'" 



? ■■<<■ '-.yiS' 






"^C^ ^\ 



\^^^. 






*7 



<- ^o^\^.'^ 



.,"i^' 



.«^^ 















,0' 












o 









^^ * o . ^ .\0 




















.^ ^*^ , 



*^ . '^ \> 



%%^' 












'^P.^^ 



UBRARVB.ND.NC . ^^ ^^ ^q^^ ^ ^^^^ > ^^^-^ '^ 

ST. AUGUSTINE ^ O^ ^ > * " . -^^ "' V^ v^i:;^^>V -> .0^ 

/^^. FLA. .-. 'X^ -^ -'- "^ .V. * J^?^*^^. .-> .<<* 






